Task ID
int64 13
2.33k
| Domain
stringclasses 4
values | Prompt
stringlengths 197
5.24k
| Rubric JSON
stringlengths 3.55k
28.4k
| File Attachments
stringlengths 23
386
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
13
|
Legal
|
Our client, Alex Jones, was involved in an automobile collision on July 15, 2025. The other vehicle involved was operated by Stephanie Smith. Mr. Jones is insured by ABC Insurance. Ms. Smith is insured by XYZ Insurance. Ms. Smith made a left-hand turn in front of Mr. Jones. There was no traffic signal. The point of impact to Ms. Smith's vehicle was the rear passenger quarter panel. The point of impact to Mr. Jones' vehicle was the front bumper.
Mr. Jones submitted a property damage claim to XYZ Insurance on July 16, 2025, for repairs to the damage to his 2025 Tesla vehicle. XYZ Insurance has not completed its liability investigation. An initial estimate for the repairs to Mr. Jones' vehicle indicates that the damage is over $85,000.
Mr. Jones is concerned that the value of the vehicle had been diminished due to the extensive repairs that will be needed and would like to pursue a diminished value claim, in addition to the property damage claim. The Tesla was purchased new this year for $100,000. The vehicle had less than 1,000 miles accrued at the time of the loss. Mr. Jones spoke to a salesman at the dealership, who advised the car's value would be diminished to $80,000, due to the extensive repairs.
All parties reside in Florida and the accident occurred in Duval County, Florida.
Mr. Jones would like our opinion on whether he can recover on a diminished value claim. Draft a legal opinion addressing the following:
(1) Whether diminution of value can be recovered in the State of Florida.
(2) Whether diminution of value applies to 1st party, 3rd party, or both.
(3) Whether Mr. Jones can recover the diminished value of the Tesla.
(4) The elements required and necessary proof to recover diminution of value in the State of Florida, including any exceptions.
In reaching your conclusion, please refer to relevant statutory references and applicable case law.
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "Drafts the response in the format of a legal opinion or memorandum, which includes at least three of the following: a factual summary, analysis, conclusion, references to relevant statutory and legal authority.",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "The prompt explicitly asks the model to 'Draft a legal opinion,' which should include a factual summary, analysis, and conclusion, with reference to relevant statutory and legal authority.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Style"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "Identifies the jurisdiction for the legal analysis as the State of Florida.",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "The prompt specifies that all parties reside in Florida and the accident occurred there, making Florida law the basis for the entire analysis.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "Explains that diminution of value claims are recognized in the State of Florida.",
"sources": "Airtechv.MacDonald.pdf McHalev.FarmBureau.pdf Sieglev.Progressive.pdf",
"justification": "As noted in Airtech Services, Inc. v. MacDonald Construction Company, diminished value claims are recognized in the State of Florida. Citing the Restatement of Torts 928, the court noted that the rule of damages applicable to the case at bar is succinctly stated in Restatement, Torts, \u00a7 928 (1939) as follows: 'Where a person is entitled to a judgment for harm to chattels not amounting to a total destruction in value, the damages include compensation for the difference between the value of the chattel before the harm and the value after the harm or, at the plaintiff's election, the reasonable cost of repair or restoration where feasible, with due allowance for any difference between the original value and the value after repairs. (150 So.2d at 465).",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "Specifically addresses whether diminution of value applies to 1st party claims, 3rd party claims, or both.",
"sources": "Sieglev.Progressive.pdf McHalev.FarmBureau.pdf",
"justification": "Regarding 1st Party Claims - The Florida Supreme Court held in Siegle v. Progressive, noted that the policy definition of 'repair' did not require the insurer to pay for the diminished value of the vehicle. (819 So.2d at 736, 738). As noted by the Supreme Court of Florida, 'proper interpretation of the policy language at hand requires that we deem diminished value a loss not covered by this policy. Acceptance of the petitioner's position that the proper definition of 'repair' includes compensation for lost value would negate the insurer's choice of remedy explicitly contained in the contractual text.' (819 So.2d at 739). Regarding 3rd Party Claims - Florida courts have held that the cost of repairs plus diminution of value are the proper measure of damages. (McHale v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 409 So.2d at 239).",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
3
]
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "States that diminution of value is generally NOT recoverable in a first-party claim in Florida.",
"sources": "Sieglev.Progressive.pdf",
"justification": "In Siegle v. Progressive, the Florida Supreme Court held that the insurance policy was not ambiguous in defining 'repair' and did not require the insurer to pay for the diminished value of the vehicle. (819 So.2d at 736, 738). As noted by the Supreme Court of Florida, 'proper interpretation of the policy language at hand requires that we deem diminished value a loss not covered by this policy. Acceptance of the petitioner's position that the proper definition of 'repair' includes compensation for lost value would negate the insurer's choice of remedy explicitly contained in the contractual text.' (819 So.2d at 739).",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
3
]
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "States that diminution of value is recoverable in a third-party claim in Florida.",
"sources": "McHalev.FarmBureau.pdf",
"justification": "Florida courts have held that the proper measure of damages for third party claimants is the cost of repairs plus diminution of value, where it is shown that the repairs do not put the property in as good as position as it was before. McHale v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. 409 So. 2d 238, 239 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). 'The proper interpretation of the Restatement of Torts Rule ... is that damages are not limited to the cost of repairs actually made where plaintiff shows that the repairs did not put the property in as good a condition as it was before the injury. In such cases, the cost of the repairs made plus the diminution in value will ordinarily be the proper measure of damages, with the burden on the plaintiff to prove in addition to the cost of repairs, that he suffered the additional damage of diminution of value by virtue of the vehicle having been involved in the accident.' McHale v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. 409 So. 2d 238, 239 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
3
]
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "List the elements required to prove diminution of value in Florida.",
"sources": "Airtechv.MacDonald.pdf McHalev.FarmBureau.pdf Sieglev.Progressive.pdf FlaStat.319.30.pdf FlaStat.626.9743.pdf",
"justification": "A DV claimant must prove: (1) the vehicle's pre-loss value, (2) the vehicle's post-repair fair market value after proper repairs, and (3) that repairs did not fully restore value, with causation linking the diminution to the loss. See McHale v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 409 So.2d 238, 239 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Restatement (First) of Torts \u00a7 928 as applied in Airtech Services, Inc. v. MacDonald Constr. Co., 150 So.2d 465. A party claiming diminished value must show that they were not at fault in causing the accident. As noted in Siegle v. Progressive, DV is only available to liability claimants. (819 So.2d at 739). As noted in McHale v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., the party must prove that the value of the vehicle has been diminished, the party must also provide the pre-accident value and an appraisal showing the post-repair value. 'Compensation for repairs is an alternative method of proving damages which purpose is to restore the defendant to same position he was in prior to the injury. The phrase 'due allowance for ... difference in value...' in application insures that the costs of repair will neither enhance nor diminish the value of the property. The proper interpretation of the Restatement of Torts Rule, quoted above, is that damages are not limited to the cost of repairs actually made where plaintiff shows that the repairs did not put the property in as good a condition as it was before the injury. In such cases, the cost of the repairs made plus the diminution in value will ordinarily be the proper measure of damages, with the burden on the plaintiff to prove in addition to the cost of repairs, that he suffered the additional damage of diminution of value by virtue of the vehicle having been involved in the accident. (409 So. 2d at 239). Exceptions - As noted in Siegle v. Progressive, DV is not applicable to 1st party claims. (819 So.2d at 739). DV is not available if the vehicle is non-repairable and deemed a total loss. (See Florida Statute 319.30 (1)(t) for definition of total loss vehicle), (See Florida Statute 627.9743 (Section 5) for the measure of damages - When a vehicle is a total loss, the insurer may offer a cash settlement based on the replacement of the vehicle's ACV or a replacement vehicle).",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
3
]
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "Identifies Mr. Jones' claim against XYZ Insurance as a third-party claim.",
"sources": "Prompt FlaStat.626.9743.pdf",
"justification": "The prompt states that the client is pursuing a liability claim against the other driver, and, therefore, the client is a third-party claimant. Per Florida Statute 626.9743 (2), '[a]n insurer may not, when liability and damages owed under the policy are reasonably clear, recommend that a third-party claimant make a claim under his or her own policy solely to avoid paying the claim under the policy issued by that insurer. However, the insurer may identify options to a third-party claimant relative to the repair of his or her vehicle. The statute notes that a third party claimant is a party filing the claim against the other party's policy, not his/her own policy. As Mr. Jones is also filing the claim on the other party's policy, he is a third party claimant. Relevant case law in this context defining 'third party claimant' was not found.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 9": {
"description": "Correctly identifies that Mr. Jones' vehicle is a total loss (it is acceptable to state 'likely' or 'pending' based on the available estimate).",
"sources": "FlaStat.319.30.pdf Prompt",
"justification": "Per Florida Statute 319.30 (1)(t), a 'salvage' vehicle is defined as a motor vehicle or mobile home which is a total loss as defined in paragraph (3)(a). Per Florida Statute 319.30 (3)(a), a vehicle is a total loss if the cost to repair the vehicle is 80% or more of the replacement cost. The total-loss determination is made by the insurer and may involve supplements and salvage considerations. The response should explain the standard and, if undetermined, characterize the status as likely or pending without asserting definitively.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 10": {
"description": "States that diminution of value is not applicable if the vehicle is determined to be a total loss under \u00a7 319.30 and that, in such case, settlement follows \u00a7 626.9743(5); if not a total loss, DV analysis may apply.",
"sources": "FlaStat.319.30.pdf FlaStat.626.9743.pdf",
"justification": "Per Florida Statute 319.30 (1)(t), a 'salvage' vehicle is defined as a motor vehicle or mobile home which is a total loss as defined in paragraph (3)(a). Per Florida Statute 319.30 (3)(a), a vehicle is a total loss if the cost to repair the vehicle is 80% or more of the replacement cost. Per Florida Statute 627.9743, when a vehicle is a total loss, the insurer may offer a cash settlement based on the replacement of the vehicle's ACV or a replacement vehicle. (Section 5).",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
9
]
}
}
|
documents/13/13_Airtechv.MacDonald.pdf
documents/13/13_FlaStat.319.30.pdf
documents/13/13_FlaStat.626.9743.pdf
documents/13/13_McHalev.FarmBureau.pdf
documents/13/13_Sieglev.Progressive.pdf
|
845
|
Legal
|
A renowned art collective calling themselves “The Roamers” has been touring the country with a pop-up art exhibit called “Circus Circus” that takes place under a circus tent erected overnight and is removed a week later. While it is in town, Circus Circus plays odd sounds and emits flashing lights, which usually stirs up lots of talk and excitement from the residents. The actual content of the exhibit is intentionally mysterious, as The Roamers want visitors to experience the art without any preconceived notions. They maintain the mystery by making visitors sign a waiver before they enter, promising that they will keep the interior exhibit a secret. In exchange for the promise, visitors are asked to write down a secret of their own, which is vetted by an attendant at the front door as worthy or unworthy for entry. The form says: "Visitors who break our secret waive their right to secrecy." Visitors then have their picture taken and posted on a page on the CircusCircus website for all to see, under the heading: “We came, we saw, we’ll never tell, we promised.” The waiver also includes a notice that reads: “Some of the contents of this exhibit may be disturbing to some viewers. By entering Circus Circus you proceed at your own risk.”
When Circus Circus came to Long Beach, California, local celebrity influencers Libby and Lonson were first in line to visit. Libby had reservations about signing the form, because she had some sensitivities to seeing blood, which usually caused her to faint, so she asked the attendant at the front if the exhibit had any blood. “I’m bound by my employer not to reveal any details so I can’t say,” was all he would say, but he did so while emphatically nodding yes.
Libby and Lonson decided to take the chance anyway. Libby filled out the form, added her secret, and handed it to the attendant. "Are you sure about this?" he asked. "I'm sure," she said, and Libby and Lonson entered the exhibit.
Sure enough, about halfway through the exhibit they turned a corner into a room that had a video projected onto all the walls to look like dripping blood. Libby immediately passed out, fell to the ground, hit her head on a sculpture, and started to actually bleed. The Roamers had a medical team on hand, and they took proper care to get her help and send her to the hospital for follow-up. Libby’s injuries were minimal, but she was severely distressed by the event, and in true influencer style, she posted a story to her Instagram account about what happened in detail, including the specifics of the room.
A day later, while looking up their pictures on the Circus Circus website, Libby saw that below her photograph were the words "I cheated on my husband," which is the secret that she wrote on her form for entry. As soon as her husband saw the post, he filed for divorce.
Libby is now seeking counsel to sue The Roamers for all of her misfortune. What are the three most viable claims can she bring against The Roamers, and which, if any, are likely to succeed?
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "Identify Libby's claim against The Roamers for negligence as related to premises liability.",
"sources": "CIV_1714",
"justification": "California Civil Code outlines negligence as follows: 'Everyone is responsible, not only for the result of his or her willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by his or her want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or her property or person, except so far as the latter has, willfully or by want of ordinary care, brought the injury upon himself or herself.' [(Cal. Civ. Code \u00a7 1714(a)] In managing Circus Circus, The Roamers owed Libby and all visitors a duty to maintain reasonably safe premises. Libby can argue that they breached this duty by exhibiting disturbing (and dangerous) imagery, and failing to properly warn her of the potential danger. She would also have to make the case that it was reasonably foreseeable that disturbing blood imagery could cause harm, especially since they anticipated disturbing reactions (they had a medical team ready). In her case, the imagery did indeed cause her to faint. Damages may include hospital bills and emotional distress.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "Conclude that Libby will fail on her negligence claim.",
"sources": "CIV_1714",
"justification": "The Roamers can rebut many of Libby's arguments in the negligence claim, but their most convincing defense is that Libby assumed the risk. Libby fainted, struck her head, and suffered injuries, but because she had prior knowledge of her sensitivity, she was also at fault (i.e., 'has willfully or by want of ordinary care, brought the injury upon himself or herself.' [Cal. Civ. Code \u00a7 1714(a)]. The waiver warned that 'contents may be disturbing,' which may be construed as vague, but when Libby specifically disclosed her sensitivity to blood, the attendant's emphatic nod communicated that the risk of blood-like imagery was indeed present. The facts state that Libby and Lonson entered 'anyway,' implying that they were aware of the risk, and made the decision to enter regardless. The court may apportion each party's degree of fault in a comparative negligence assessment to award damages, but the assumption of the risk defense is a strong bar against Libby's negligence claim.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1
]
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "Identify Libby's claim against The Roamers for public disclosure of private facts.",
"sources": "Cal. Const. art. I, \u00a71; CACI-1801",
"justification": "California places a high value on the right to privacy. ('All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.' (Cal. Const. art. I, \u00a71)) California's jury instructions for deciding the tort of public disclosure of private facts reads: '[Name of plaintiff] claims that [name of defendant] violated [his/her/nonbinary pronoun] right to privacy. To establish this claim, [plaintiff] must prove all of the following: 1. That [name of defendant] publicized private information concerning [plaintiff]; 2. That a reasonable person in [plaintiff]'s position would consider the publicity highly offensive; 3. That [defendant] knew, or acted with reckless disregard of the fact, that a reasonable person in [plaintiff]'s position would consider the publicity highly offensive; 4. That the private information was not of legitimate public concern [or did not have a substantial connection to a matter of legitimate public concern]; 5. That [plaintiff] was harmed; and 6. That [defendant]'s conduct was a substantial factor in causing [plaintiff]'s harm.' (CACI 1801). Libby can meet the elements of her case simply: The Roamers publicly disclosed (via the Circus Circus website), a private secret ('I cheated on my husband'), that they knew would be highly offensive to a reasonable person (scandal ensued), and not of legitimate public concern (as the inner workings of most marital relationships are not), with severe damage (divorce, reputational damage).",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "Identify Libby's consent to disclosure as a bar to the public disclosure of private facts claim.",
"sources": "CACI-1801;",
"justification": "When ruling on public disclosure of private facts, California juries are given this guidance: 'In deciding whether the information was a matter of legitimate public concern, you should consider, among other factors ... whether [name of plaintiff] consented to the publicity explicitly or by voluntarily seeking public attention or a public office...' [CACI 1801 (c)]. Here, The Roamers can argue that Libby explicitly consented to the disclosure of her secret when she wrote it down on the form for entry, and when she affirmed to the attendant 'I'm sure.' Also, her later instagram post about the incident that included details of the exhibit can be said to have opened the door for publication of her secret.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
3
]
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "Identify that The Roamers can defend against the public disclosure of private facts claim because Libby is a public figure.",
"sources": "CACI-1801",
"justification": "The Roamers can argue that Libby is a public figure and so her secret was fair game for publication. The analysis for 'deciding whether the information was a matter of legitimate public concern' includes 'the social value of the information.' [CACI 1801(a)]. California's jury instructions offer additional common law findings to support this particular analysis, including: '[N]ewsworthiness is not limited to 'news' in the narrow sense of reports of current events. It extends also to the use of names, likenesses or facts in giving information to the public for purposes of education, amusement or enlightenment, when the public may reasonably be expected to have a legitimate interest in what is published' [CACI 1801, citing (Jackson v. Mayweather (2017)10 Cal.App.5th at p. 1257]; and: 'Almost any truthful commentary on public officials or public affairs, no matter how serious the invasion of privacy, will be privileged.' [CACI 1801, citing Briscoe v. Reader's Digest Assn., Inc. (1971) 4 Cal.3d at p. 535, fn. 5]. The facts state that Libby and Lonson are 'local celebrity influencers.' Though the degree of their celebrity status may be at issue, the Roamers can make that case that their very profession willingly subjects the details of their lives to public scrutiny. Though it may not be news in the traditional sense, Libby's secret can certainly be expected to draw 'legitimate interest' whether for 'amusement' or other entertaining reasons.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
3
]
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "Conclude that Libby will likely fail on her public disclosure of private facts claim.",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "The jury instructions further explain that 'the absence of any one of these elements is a complete bar to liability,' [CACI 1801, citing (Moreno v. Hanford Sentinel, Inc. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1129\u20131130 (91 Cal.Rptr.3d 858)], so the court only needs to agree with The Roamers in one of their arguments: that Libby consented to the disclosure of her secret, or that she was indeed a public figure. Both are convincing, and so Libby is likely to fail on her claim of public disclosure of a private fact.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
4,
5
]
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "Identify Libby's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.",
"sources": "Hughes v Pair",
"justification": "A successful claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress requires: (1) extreme and outrageous conduct, (2) intent to cause or reckless disregard of the probability of causing emotional distress, (3) severe emotional distress, and (4) causation. ['A cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress exists when there is '(1) extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant with the intention of causing, or reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress; (2) the plaintiff\u201fs suffering severe or extreme emotional distress; and (3) actual and proximate causation of the emotional distress by the defendant\u201fs outrageous conduct.\u201f (Hughes v. Pair, 46 Cal.4th 1035 (2009), p. 18.] Here, Libby can argue that publicizing her secret in a humiliating manner on the Circus Circus website qualifies as outrageous conduct; it was reasonably foreseeable that such disclosure would cause distress (and duly caused it); and that she suffered loss of her marriage and humiliation.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "Conclude that Libby will likely fail on her claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress.",
"sources": "Hughes v Pair",
"justification": "The bar for proving IIED is high. In Hughes v Pair, the court cited a similar line of cases to emphasize the severity of a finding of IIED: 'A defendant's conduct is 'outrageous' when it is so 'extreme as to exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized community... And the defendant's conduct must be 'intended to inflict injury or engaged in with the realization that injury will result.'...With respect to the requirement that the plaintiff show severe emotional distress, this court has set a high bar. 'Severe emotional distress means 'emotional distress of such substantial quality or enduring quality that no reasonable [person] in civilized society should be expected to endure it.' ' [Hughes v. Pair, 46 Cal.4th 1035 (2009) p. 18-19]. The Roamers can argue that their act of publishing Libby's secret did not meet the high bar of misconduct the court requires in a few ways: that it was not outrageous because Libby knew of the terms and potential for publication, and chose to offer it anyway - (i.e., that it was not surprising); or that they did not intend to cause injury, but rather to follow through on a contractual agreement designed to protect their own business interests; and that many people have endured similar revelations of adultery, and Libby should be expected to do the same. Ultimately it will be up to the court to decide whether The Roamers are guilty of IIED, but the degree of the offense is certainly mitigated by Libby's own actions and by the high bar of this tort.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
7
]
}
}
|
documents/845/CACI-1801-1802.pdf
documents/845/CIV_1668.pdf
documents/845/CIV_1714.pdf
documents/845/Hughes v Pair.pdf
|
942
|
Legal
|
On January 11th, 2025, in Compton, California, Christy Rothschild, aged 24, was babysitting Jontae Rodriguez, aged 15. Jontae finished showering and came out of the bathroom wearing a towel. As she passed Christy in the hallway, Christy deliberately grazed her elbow against Jontae's chest and winked at Jontae while making a purring sound. When Jontae turned to look at Christy, Christy stuck her finger into her mouth seductively and invited Jontae to join her in the bedroom for "more where that came from." Jontae hurried down the hallway, locked herself in her bedroom, and called her parents, who then called the police.
On January 19th, 2025, the Los Angeles County District Attorney charged Christy with a misdemeanor violation of California Penal Code section 288(c)(1). A jury convicted Ms. Rothschild, and Ms. Rothschild now appeals, claiming insufficiency of evidence.
Draft a client advisement letter using the attached file, assessing the likelihood that the appellate court will grant Ms. Rothschild's appeal, citing relevant California Code.
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "States the California Penal Code section 288 prohibits lewd or lascivious acts.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "California Code, Penal Code - PEN \u00a7 288: '(a) Except as provided in subdivision (i), a person who willfully and lewdly ***commits any lewd or lascivious act***, including any of the acts constituting other crimes provided for in Part 1, upon or with the body, or any part or member thereof, of a child who is under the age of 14 years, with the intent of arousing, appealing to, or gratifying the lust, passions, or sexual desires of that person or the child, is guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for three, six, or eight years. ... (c)(1) A person who ***commits an act described in subdivision (a)*** with the intent described in that subdivision, and the victim is a child of 14 or 15 years, and that person is at least 10 years older than the child, is guilty of a public offense and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for one, two, or three years, or by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year. In determining whether the person is at least 10 years older than the child, the difference in age shall be measured from the birth date of the person to the birth date of the child.' *** added for emphasis https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-288/",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "States that California Penal Code section 288(c)(1) applies only when the perpetrator is at least 10 years older than the victim.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "California Code, Penal Code - PEN \u00a7 288: '... (c)(1) A person who commits an act described in subdivision (a)*** with the intent described in that subdivision, ***and the victim is a child of 14 or 15 years, and that person is at least 10 years older than the child***, is guilty of a public offense and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for one, two, or three years, or by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year. In determining whether the person is at least 10 years older than the child, the difference in age shall be measured from the birth date of the person to the birth date of the child.' *** added for emphasis https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-288/",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "Calculates that Ms. Rothschild is not at least 10 years older than Jontae.",
"sources": "Prompt.",
"justification": "PROMPT 'On January 11th, 2025, in Compton, California, Christy Rothschild, aged 24, was babysitting Jontae Rodriguez, aged 15.' APPLICATION 24 - 15 = 9 Thus, Ms. Rothschild is not at least 10 years older than Jontae.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "Concludes that there was no evidence establishing the requisite 10+ year age difference required under PC 288(c)(1).",
"sources": "",
"justification": "As established in C2/22685, Penal Code section 288(c)(1) applies only when the perpetrator is at least 10 years older than the victim. As established in C3/22686, Ms. Rothschild is not at least 10 years older than Jontae. Thus, here was no evidence establishing the requisite 10+ year age gap required under PC 288(c)(1).",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
2,
3
]
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "Concludes there is a very high likelihood Ms. Rothschild's appeal will be granted.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "As established in C1/22684, California Penal Code section 288 prohibits lewd or lascivious acts. As established in C7/22828, on an appeal of a criminal conviction for insufficiency of evidence, the standard of review is whether there is substantial evidence to support the conviction. As established in C4/22687, there was no evidence establishing the requisite 10+ year age difference required under PC 288(c)(1). As such, even under the deferential substantial evidence standard, there is a very high likelihood Ms. Rothschild's appeal will be granted. This conclusion applies regardless of whether Ms. Rothschild's conduct constituted a 'lewd or lascivious act.' The 10+ year age difference requirement is an element of PC 288(c)(1), and so a conviction under that statute cannot stand where there is no evidence in support of the age-difference element. See PC 288(c)(1): '...and that person is at least 10 years older than the child...' See the jury instruction for PC 288(c)(1), CALCRIM 1112, which states that the 10+ year age-difference is a distinct element of the offense: 'To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must prove that: ...AND 4. When the defendant acted, the child was at least 10 years younger than the defendant.' https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/1000/1112/ In Ms. Rothschild's appeal, an expert appellate attorney would err on the side of caution and also argue there was not substantial evidence of a lewd or lascivious act. However, because: - under the deferential 'substantial evidence' standard there very likely was sufficient evidence of a lewd or lascivious act (deliberately grazing Jontae's chest, winking and purring, sticking her finger seductively into her mouth and inviting Jontae to the bedroom for 'more where that came from') - there is a complete lack of evidence supporting the age-gap element, and - the prompt asks for a client advisement letter addressing the likelihood that the appellate court will grant Ms. Rothschild's appeal, an expert advisement should focus exclusively on the age-gap issue and conclude that Ms. Rothschild's appeal will very likely be granted.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1,
7,
4
]
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "Formats the response as a client advisement letter that includes at least three of the following: a question presented identifying the legal issue, a brief answer identifying an answer to the legal issue, a fact section, a discussion section where the legal issue is analyzed, or a conclusion summarizing the legal analysis.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "The prompt asks for a client advisement letter. While there is no single style for this, such a document usually includes a question presented identifying the legal issue, a brief answer providing the resolution of the issue, a fact section, a discussion section analyzing the issue, and a conclusion summarizing the analysis.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Style"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "States that on an appeal of a criminal conviction for insufficiency of evidence, the standard of review is whether there is substantial evidence to support the conviction.",
"sources": "PEOPLE v. CROMER.pdf",
"justification": "People v. Cromer (2001) 24 Cal.4th 889: 'The standards of review for questions of pure fact and pure law are well developed and settled. Trial courts and juries are better situated to resolve questions of fact, while appellate courts are more competent to resolve questions of law. Traditionally, therefore, an appellate court reviews findings of fact under a deferential standard (substantial evidence under California law, clearly erroneous under federal law), but it reviews determinations of law under a nondeferential standard, which is independent or de novo review.'",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
}
}
|
documents/942/942_PEOPLE v. CROMER.pdf
|
1,022
|
Legal
|
Our client has been arrested and charged in connection with a series of thefts at a gas station where he works. The manager of the gas station noticed that the cash register had been short on numerous nights throughout the last month, all of which coincided with nights that the defendant was recorded as working, based on the timesheets. The gas station has surveillance video, but the manager did not have access to the system and was unaware of its operation - in order to access the surveillance video, the manager had to reach out to a different employee with an IT background. The manager requested the surveillance videos for each night that the cash register was short. The manager has never met the defendant in person but has seen a photograph of him in the employee file.
The manager watched the videos several times and noticed a person he recognizes to be the defendant in the videos, scanning lottery tickets at various points throughout the night without collecting any sort of payment from a customer. The manager reviewed the cash register transaction records and saw that the transaction records indicate that a sale was made, even though the defendant was never seen collecting any money on the videos.
The manager called the police, who attended the gas station the next time the defendant was scheduled to work. The officers informed the defendant, prior to speaking with him, that he was not under arrest and was free to end the conversation with them at any time. When asked, the defendant denied stealing. The officers then showed the defendant the video surveillance footage and relevant transaction logs, and the defendant admitted to scanning lottery tickets without taking money from any customers. The police placed the defendant under arrest and the State of Florida charged the defendant with grand theft.
Please prepare a legal memo using the attached files, answering the following questions:
(1) the State intends to introduce the surveillance videos through the manager's testimony. If an objection to the admission of that evidence is made, should the objection be sustained?
Assume for questions 2 and 3 that the State successfully introduces the surveillance videos into evidence and that the surveillance videos are the only exhibits in evidence.
(2) the State will ask the manager to identify the defendant as the person depicted in the surveillance videos. If an objection to the admission of that evidence is made, should the objection be sustained?
(3) the State will also ask the manager to testify that the defendant worked each night the cash register came up short. If an objection to the admission of that evidence is made, should the objection be sustained?
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "Formats the response as a legal memorandum that includes at least three of the following: a question presented identifying the legal issue, a brief answer identifying an answer to the legal issue, a fact section, a discussion section where the legal issue is analyzed, and a conclusion summarizing the legal analysis.",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "The prompt indicates that the answer should be formatted as a legal memorandum that includes at least three of the following: a question presented identifying the legal issue, a brief answer identifying an answer to the legal issue, a fact section, a discussion section where the legal issue is analyzed, and a conclusion summarizing the legal analysis.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Style"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "Identifies that Florida law applies.",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "The prompt indicates that Florida Law should be applied in answering the questions.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "Identifies that video footage may be admitted under the 'pictorial theory' if it fairly and accurately depicts what a witness personally observed.",
"sources": "WAGNER v. STATE.pdf",
"justification": "Under the theory of pictorial testimony a video may be admitted if the witness testifies that the video fairly and accurately depicts what the witness personally observed. Wagner v. State, 707 So.2d 827, 830 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "Identifies that video footage may be admissible under the 'silent witness theory' if the video is determined to be reliable.",
"sources": "WAGNER v. STATE.pdf",
"justification": "'Under the 'silent witness' theory, photographic evidence may be admitted upon proof of the reliability of the process which produced the photograph or videotape.' Wagner v. State, 707 So. 2d 827, 830 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "Identifies that the Court considers five factors in determining if the video is reliable under the 'silent witness' theory.",
"sources": "WAGNER v. STATE.pdf",
"justification": "'We thus hold that relevant photographic evidence may be admitted into evidence on the 'silent witness' theory when the trial judge determines it to be reliable, after having considered the following: (1) evidence establishing the time and date of the photographic evidence; (2) any evidence of editing or tampering; (3) the operating condition and capability of the equipment producing the photographic evidence as it relates to the accuracy and reliability of the photographic product;(4) the procedure employed as it relates to the preparation, testing, operation, and security of the equipment used to produce the photographic product, including the security of the product itself; and (5) testimony identifying the relevant participants depicted in the photographic evidence.' Wagner v. State, 707 So. 2d 827, 831 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "Identifies factor 1 (time/date accuracy) under the silent witness test and reaches a defended conclusion.",
"sources": "Prompt, WAGNER v. STATE.pdf",
"justification": "In this case the manager does not know the time or date that the recording was made as he has no familiarity with the video surveillance system. This is in contrast to the witness in Wagner v. State, 707 So.2d 827, 831 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), who testified 'as to the time and date that on which the tape was made.' Here, the manager is unable provide any testimony about the time and date the recording was made and therefore the first factor weighs against the video being reliable.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
5
]
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "Identifies factor 2 (no editing/tampering) on these facts and reaches a defended conclusion.",
"sources": "Prompt, WAGNER v. STATE.pdf",
"justification": "In this case the manager is unable to provide any testimony regarding whether the footage has been edited or tampered with. This is in contrast to the witness in Wagner v. State, 707 So.2d 827, 831 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), who testified that the recording 'had not been tampered or edited.' Id. In this case the manager is unable to testify that the video footage was not tampered with or edited because he does not know how the recording system works, therefore the second factor also weighs against the video footage being reliable.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
5
]
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "Identifies factor 3 (installation/operation accuracy) on these facts and reaches a defended conclusion.",
"sources": "Prompt, WAGNER v. STATE.pdf",
"justification": "In this case the manager does not know the operating condition and capability of the equipment producing the photographic evidence as it relates to the accuracy and reliability of the photographic product. This is in contrast to Wagner v. State, 707 So.2d 827, 831 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), where the witness testified 'as to the installation and operation of the video camera.' Thus, in this case the manager's inability to testify about the operating condition and capability of the equipment weighs against the video footage being reliable.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
5
]
},
"criterion 9": {
"description": "Identifies factor 4 (procedures/security; chain of custody/system integrity) on these facts and reaches a defended conclusion.",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "In this case the manager does not know the procedure employed as it relates to the preparation, testing, operation, and security of the equipment used to produce the photographic product, including the security of the product itself. In fact, the manager does not have any idea as to any of the procedures used in the preparation, testing, operation, and security of the equipment used to produce the recording. The manager is also unable to testify about the system's security. Therefore, the fourth factor weighs against the recording being reliable.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
5
]
},
"criterion 10": {
"description": "Identifies factor 5 (clear depiction of persons/events) on these facts and reaches a defended conclusion.",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "In this case the manager is able to identify on the video recording. Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of the recording being reliable.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
5
]
},
"criterion 11": {
"description": "Identifies pictorial-testimony foundation on these facts and reaches a defended conclusion.",
"sources": "Prompt, WAGNER v. STATE.pdf",
"justification": "The manager did not see the events that were recorded and therefore cannot testify that the recording fairly and accurately depicts what he witnessed. The recording is therefore not admissible under the pictorial theory of authentication of video footage. See Wagner v. State, 707 So.2d 827, 830 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (discussing that recording or photographs are admissible under pictorial theory of authentication if witness can testify that it fairly and accurately represents what the witness personally saw).",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
3
]
},
"criterion 12": {
"description": "Identifies admissibility under the silent-witness doctrine on these facts and reaches a defended conclusion.",
"sources": "Prompt, WAGNER v. STATE.pdf",
"justification": "Evidence must be authenticated before admission. Fla. Stat. \u00a7 90.901 ('Authentication or identification of evidence is required as a condition precedent to its admissibility.'). Under Florida's silent-witness doctrine, video may be admitted 'upon proof of the reliability of the process which produced the\u2026 videotape,' evaluated through five non-exclusive factors (time/date; tampering; equipment condition/capability; procedures/security/chain; participant identification). Wagner v. State enumerates the five factors and explains that reliability of the producing process governs admission. (Factors listed at (1)\u2013(5).) Here, the manager lacked access to or knowledge of the surveillance system, obtained the footage from IT, and there is no testimony about time/date metadata, operating condition, procedures/security or chain of custody; the manager can only identify the participant from a file photo. (Prompt facts.) On these facts, factor (5) (identification) may be satisfied, but factors (1)\u2013(4) are not established: no evidence of recording time/date accuracy, no affirmative proof ruling out editing/tampering, no testimony on equipment operation/capability, and no procedures/security or chain-of-custody foundation. Because the State has not shown the process to be reliable, \u00a7 90.901 authentication under silent witness is not met and the objection should be sustained. (If the State later presents a qualified IT/custodian to lay these elements, the analysis could change.)",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10
]
},
"criterion 13": {
"description": "States Florida's lay-opinion identification rule, based on the witness's perceptions, is helpful to the jury.",
"sources": "PROCTOR v. STATE.pdf",
"justification": "Fla. Stat. \u00a7 90.701(1)\u2013(2) permits lay identification only when testimony is based on the witness's perceptions and 'may be in the form of inference and opinion' where the perception cannot be 'readily\u2026 communicate[d]' otherwise and the opinion will not mislead the jury. In evaluating photo/video identifications by non-eyewitnesses with no special familiarity, Florida courts caution that 'the jurors should have been allowed to determine for themselves whether Proctor was the person shown in the surveillance video.' Proctor v. State, 97 So. 3d 313, 316 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). Here, the manager never met the defendant and knows him only from a file photograph; he was not an eyewitness and has no specialized identification expertise, so his familiarity is no better than the jury's, triggering \u00a7 90.701's limits and Proctor's warning about invading the jury's role.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
2
]
},
"criterion 14": {
"description": "Identifies admissibility of law identification by a non-eyewitness whose familiarity derives from an employee photo.",
"sources": "Prompt, PROCTOR v. STATE.pdf",
"justification": "Florida permits lay identification only when the opinion is based on the witness's own perceptions and is necessary/helpful to the jury, and it does not require specialized expertise. Fla. Stat. \u00a7 90.701(1)\u2013(2) ('testimony about what he or she perceived may be in the form of inference and opinion' if the witness cannot otherwise convey it equally well and it will not mislead). Florida courts caution against allowing non-eyewitness identification where the witness lacks special familiarity; 'The jurors should have been allowed to determine for themselves whether Proctor was the person shown in the surveillance video.' Proctor v. State, 97 So. 3d 313, 316 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). Here, the manager had never met the defendant, had no specialized identification training, and knew him only from a single employee-file photograph. (Prompt facts.) Application. Because the manager is in no better position than jurors to identify the person in the video, and his opinion risks substituting for the jury's own comparison, \u00a7 90.701's 'helpfulness' requirement is not met on these facts; consistent with Proctor, the identification should be excluded.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 15": {
"description": "States that testifying to the contents of a business record is hearsay unless the record is admitted.",
"sources": "T.V.U. v. STATE.pdf",
"justification": "'Although section 90.803(6) permits the admission of business records under certain circumstances, testimony of a business record's contents may not be introduced when that record has not been admitted into evidence.' T.V.U. v. State, 403 So. 3d 389, 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2025)",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 16": {
"description": "Identifies whether the timesheet/register-log testimony is inadmissible hearsay absent a proper Section 90.903(6) foundation.",
"sources": "Prompt, YISRAEL v. STATE .pdf",
"justification": "Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered for its truth and is inadmissible unless an exception applies. Fla. Stat. \u00a7\u00a7 90.801(1)(c), 90.802. The business-records exception requires a proper foundation: the record was made at or near the time by a person with knowledge, kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity, and 'shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness' (or by certification). Fla. Stat. \u00a7 90.803(6)(a). See Yisrael v. State, 993 So. 2d 952, 956\u201357 (Fla. 2008) (statutory predicates must be established through a records custodian/qualified witness or via \u00a7 90.902(11) certification). The State elicited the manager's testimony about what the timesheets/register logs say (who worked; sales entries) but did not introduce those records, present a custodian/qualified witness, or provide a \u00a7 90.902(11) certification; the manager lacked personal knowledge of the entries' creation. Because the State neither admitted the records nor laid the \u00a7 90.803(6) foundation, the manager's testimony relaying their contents is hearsay offered for its truth and does not fit an exception. On these facts, the objection to the timesheet/register-log testimony should be sustained (if the State later admits the records with a proper foundation, the analysis may change).",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
}
}
|
documents/1022/1022_PROCTOR v. STATE.pdf
documents/1022/1022_T.V.U. v. STATE.pdf
documents/1022/1022_WAGNER v. STATE.pdf
documents/1022/1022_YISRAEL v. STATE .pdf
|
1,031
|
Legal
|
A defendant was arrested in Puerto Rico and charged with illegal possession of a firearm and ammunition as a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The defendant moved to suppress evidence of the firearm, arguing the search of his home lacked probable cause. The district court denied the defendant's motion to suppress. The defendant then entered an unconditional guilty plea and was sentenced to three years in prison. The defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in finding probable cause for the search of his home. The district attorney did not file any motions regarding the appeal. Draft a legal memo analyzing whether the appellate court has jurisdiction over this case. Please reference the attached cases in your analysis.
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "States that a denial of a pretrial motion is a non-jurisdictional defect that is waived by an unconditional guilty plea.",
"sources": "US-v.-Coil.pdf",
"justification": "Federal case law provides, 'An erroneous pretrial ruling is a non-jurisdictional defect that is waived by an unconditional guilty plea.' United States v. Coil, 442 F.3d 912, 914 (5th Cir. 2006). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15423113561218411933&q=442+F.3d+912&hl=en&as_sdt=4006",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "Identifies that the defendant waived his right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion by entering an unconditional plea agreement.",
"sources": "US-v.-Coil.pdf",
"justification": "LAW Per C1/25249, 'An erroneous pretrial ruling is a non-jurisdictional defect that is waived by an unconditional guilty plea.' United States v. Coil, 442 F.3d 912, 914 (5th Cir. 2006). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15423113561218411933&q=442+F.3d+912&hl=en&as_sdt=4006 APPLICATION Here, the defendant moved to suppress evidence of the firearm that was found in his home. The district court denied this motion. Per U.S. v. Coil, this is a non-jurisdictional defect, and the defendant waived his right to appeal this defect when he entered the unconditional plea agreement.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1
]
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "Identifies that the First Circuit has jurisdiction over the case.",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "LAW The First Circuit has jurisdiction over Puerto Rico. https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/about-court\\n APPLICATION The defendant was arrested and charged federally in Puerto Rico. Therefore, his appeal will be heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "Identifies that a majority of the United States Court of Appeals circuit courts have held that if the government does not timely invoke a defendant's waiver of appeal due to an unconditional guilty plea, the appellate court can assert jurisdiction.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Three out of the four circuit courts (Ninth, Tenth, and Fifth versus Seventh) that have addressed the issue of whether an appellate court can assert jurisdiction when the government does not timely invoke a defendant's waiver of appeal due to an unconditional guilty plea, have decided that the appellate court can assert jurisdiction, making this the majority holding.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "States that the First Circuit has not addressed the issue of whether appellate courts must raise a defendant's waiver sua sponte where an unconditional guilty plea would otherwise preclude appellate review.",
"sources": "US-v.-Da\u0301vila-Gonza\u0301lez.pdf US-v.-Combs.pdf US-v.-Jacobo Castillo.pdf US v. De Vaughn.pdf US v. Riojas.pdf",
"justification": "Only the Ninth, Tenth, Seventh, and Fifth Circuits have addressed this particular issue. See e.g., United States v. Riojas, No. 24-40378, (5th Cir. 2025) ('On that point, our sister circuits split. The Seventh Circuit treats an unconditional guilty plea as jurisdictional and enforces it sua sponte. See United States v. Combs, 657 F.3d 565, 568-71 (7th Cir. 2011) (per curiam). The Ninth and Tenth Circuits disagree. They treat the plea as a non-jurisdictional bar\u2014a waivable claim-processing rule. See United States v. Jacobo Castillo, 496 F.3d 947, 951-57 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc); United States v. DeVaughn, 694 F.3d 1141, 1154-58 (10th Cir. 2012).') https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/24/24-40378-CR0.pdf United States v. D\u00e1vila-Gonz\u00e1lez, 595 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2010), does not apply here because the crux of the issue in the prompt and among the split circuits is when the government never invokes the defendant's guilty plea as a bar to the appeal. The question then becomes whether the appellate court will enforce the guilty plea, sua sponte, or will view the government's failure to invoke the plea as a waiver. In D\u00e1vila-Gonz\u00e1lez, the defendant challenged his sentence on appeal, and the government raised the issue of his guilty plea as a bar to his appeal. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15311569676613545674&q=United+States+v.+D%C3%A1vila-Gonz%C3%A1lez,+595+F.3d+42+(1st+Cir.+2010)&hl=en&as_sdt=4006",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "Concludes that if the First Circuit adopts the precedent set by the Seventh Circuit, the First Circuit would not have jurisdiction.",
"sources": "US-v.-Combs.pdf",
"justification": "Per C8/28888, the Seventh Circuit enforces unconditional guilty pleas as a jurisdictional bar to appeal, sua sponte. 'Typically, the jurisdictional bar is asserted by the government in response to a defendant's attempt to raise pre-plea issues after entering an unconditional plea. Here, however, the government overlooked the absence of a conditional guilty plea and responded to Combs's brief as if there is no question about our jurisdiction to evaluate his contentions. . .' 'But Combs waived this contention by pleading guilty unconditionally, and, because he did not preserve any issues for review, we must dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.' United States v. Combs, 657 F.3d 565 (7th Cir. 2011). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8254559749589629717&hl=en&as_sdt=4006",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
8
]
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "Concludes that if the First Circuit adopts the precedent set by the majority of the circuit courts, the First Circuit would have jurisdiction.",
"sources": "US-v.-Jacobo Castillo.pdf US v. De Vaughn.pdf US v. Riojas.pdf",
"justification": "Per C4/25895, the Ninth, Tenth, and Fifth Circuits have held that if the government does not timely invoke a defendant's waiver of appeal due to an unconditional guilty plea, the appellate court can assert jurisdiction. United States v. Riojas, No. 24-40378, (5th Cir. 2025). https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/24/24-40378-CR0.pdf 3 United States v. De Vaughn, 694 F.3d1141, 1158 (10th Cir. 2012). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6905964674287180458&q=United+States+v.+Riojas&hl=en&as_sdt=20006&as_ylo=2025#p1154 United States v. Jacobo Castillo, 496 F.3d 947, 957 (9th Cir. 2007). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12860209247378946331&q=United+States+v.+Riojas&hl=en&as_sdt=20006&as_ylo=2025#p951",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
4
]
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "Identifies that the Seventh Circuit court enforces unconditional guilty pleas on the court's own initiative.",
"sources": "US-v.-Combs.pdf",
"justification": "In the Seventh Circuit, unconditional guilty pleas are treated as jurisdictional, and the court enforces them on the court's own initiative, regardless of whether the government invoked the waiver itself. See United States v. Combs, 657 F.3d 565, 571 (7th Cir. 2011). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8254559749589629717&hl=en&as_sdt=4006 In United States v. Combs, the defendant, Combs, sought leave to file an untimely motion to suppress, which the district court denied. Combs subsequently entered an unconditional guilty plea. Combs then filed an appeal, challenging the district court's refusal to let him file a late motion to suppress. On appeal, the government did not argue that Combs had waived his right to appeal the district court's ruling due to him entering an unconditional guilty plea. The Seventh Circuit held that while 'the government can forego a defense . . . [the appellate court is] not obligated to accept the government's waiver.' The Seventh Circuit enforced Combs's unconditional guilty waiver sua sponte and dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. United States v. Combs, 657 F.3d 565 (7th Cir. 2011). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8254559749589629717&hl=en&as_sdt=4006",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
}
}
|
documents/1031/1031_US v. De Vaughn.pdf
documents/1031/1031_US v. Riojas.pdf
documents/1031/1031_US-v.-Coil.pdf
documents/1031/1031_US-v.-Combs.pdf
documents/1031/1031_US-v.-Dávila-González.pdf
documents/1031/1031_US-v.-Jacobo Castillo.pdf
|
1,041
|
Legal
|
John was a member of the Navajo Nation. John died while living with his daughter Penny in his house on the reservation. A year prior to his death, John executed a handwritten will that left all of his property (house, jewelry, car) to his best friend Kevin. However, moments before John's death, he stated among his only two children, Penny and Bill, and his wife Jill that he wanted to give his house to Penny, his jewelry to his wife Jill, and his car to Bill upon John’s death. They all agreed to honor John's wishes. Determine who will take his property, taking into consideration the documents attached.
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "States that John was a member of the Navajo Nation.",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "The prompt indicates: 'John was a member of the Navajo Nation. John died while living with his daughter Penny in his house on the reservation.'",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "States that John died while domiciled on the reservation.",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "'John was a member of the Navajo Nation. John died while living with his daughter Penny in his house on the reservation.'",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "States that the Navajo courts have authority to govern tribal affairs.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'The cases in this Court have consistently guarded the authority of Indian governments over their reservations. Congress recognized this authority in the Navajos in the Treaty of 1868, and has done so ever since. If this power is to be taken away from them, it is for Congress to do it.' Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217 (1959) citing the Navajo Treaty of 1868, 15 Stat. 667. The Treaty of 1868 was a treaty between the Federal government and the Navajo Nation which granted governance authority to the Navajo Nation over tribal affairs and set up Navajo courts. The Supreme court confirmed the application of this treaty in Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217. Case has not been attached, as it is a landmark case of the Supreme Court and should be considered common legal knowledge.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "States that probate is a tribal affair subject to tribal governance.",
"sources": "In Re Lynchs Estate.pdf",
"justification": "'We hold that since there was no question that the will of Mary Lynch had been admitted to probate in the Navajo Tribal Court, the superior court of Apache County did not have authority to inquire into the execution of the will, and should have admitted it to probate.' In re Estate of Lynch, 92 Ariz. 354, 377 P.2d 199 (1962). In Re lynch is a 1962 Arizona Supreme Court case which establishes that tribal probate proceedings are within the scope of tribal authority granted by the Treaty of 1868.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "States that John's property is under Navajo jurisdiction.",
"sources": "5A-12.pdf",
"justification": "The Navajo Nation Code at tit. 8, ch. 1, \u00a7 3, Annotations 2 (Oral dispositions) states: 'The Family Court of the Navajo Nation shall have original jurisdiction over all cases involving the descent and distribution of deceased Indians' unrestricted property found within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court.' John's house was located on Navajo land, within the territorial jurisdiction of the Navajo. There is no indication that it is restricted. Accordingly, this requirement is met.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "States that under Navajo Tribal Law, oral wills are accepted as valid if all immediate family members are present during the oral distribution and agree to honor the testator's wishes.",
"sources": "5A-12.pdf",
"justification": "'If all of his immediate family are present and agree that his wishes will be honored after his death, a Navajo may, under custom, orally state who shall have his property after his death.' NAVAJO NATION CODE tit. 8, ch. 1, \u00a7 3, Annotations 2 (Oral dispositions).",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "States that under Navajo Tribal Law, oral wills are accepted as valid if all immediate family members agree to honor the testator's wishes.",
"sources": "5A-12.pdf",
"justification": "'If all of his immediate family are present and agree that his wishes will be honored after his death, a Navajo may, under custom, orally state who shall have his property after his death.' NAVAJO NATION CODE tit. 8, ch. 1, \u00a7 3, Annotations 2 (Oral dispositions).",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "Concludes that the Navajo oral will conditions are met.",
"sources": "Prompt 5A-12.pdf",
"justification": "The prompt indicates: 'However, moments before John's death, he stated among his only two children, Penny and Bill, and his wife Jill that he wanted to give his house to Penny, his jewelry to his wife Jill, and his car to Bill upon John's death. They all agreed to honor John's wishes.' Per C5/6: 'If all of his immediate family are present and agree that his wishes will be honored after his death, a Navajo may, under custom, orally state who shall have his property after his death.' NAVAJO NATION CODE tit. 8, ch. 1, \u00a7 3, Annotations 2 (Oral dispositions). 'We hold today that the immediate family includes all of the children of the testator and the spouse if alive. NAVAJO NATION CODE tit. 8, ch. 1, \u00a7 2, Annotations 4 (Oral wills). Accordingly, since John's only two children and his spouse were present during the oral will, the requirements of Navajo Nation Code have been met.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
6,
7
]
},
"criterion 9": {
"description": "States that the oral will replaced the previously made holographic will that left property to Kevin.",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "'A year prior to his death, John executed a handwritten will that left all of his property (house, jewelry, car) to his best friend Kevin. However, moments before John's death, he stated among his only two children, Penny and Bill, and his wife Jill that he wanted to give his house to Penny, his jewelry to his wife Jill, and his car to Bill upon John's death. They all agreed to honor John's wishes.' Per C8, the oral will was validly made under Navajo Code. Accordingly, it replaces the previously made holographic will.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 10": {
"description": "States that Kevin would not be entitled to any property.",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "Per C9, John's oral will supersedes his previous holographic will. The oral will does not leave any property to Kevin.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
9
]
},
"criterion 11": {
"description": "States that Penny would be entitled to the house.",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "Per C9, John's oral will replaced his previous holographic will. The oral will leaves his house to Penny.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
9
]
},
"criterion 12": {
"description": "States that Jill would be entitled to the jewelry.",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "Per C9, John's oral will replaced his previous holographic will. The oral will leaves his jewelry to his wife Jill.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
9
]
},
"criterion 13": {
"description": "States that Bill would be entitled to the car",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "Per C9, John's oral will replaced his previous holographic will. The oral will leaves his car to Bill.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
9
]
}
}
|
documents/1041/1041_5A-12.pdf
documents/1041/1041_In Re Lynchs Estate.pdf
|
1,078
|
Legal
|
Steven Smith was driving on Route 53 in Indianapolis, Indiana on June 28, 2025. Route 53 is a rural road, surrounded by farms, with one lane going in each direction. The speed limit is 55 MPH.
Steven Smith was looking for a farm where he had an appointment to view some equipment for sale. He became lost, applied the brakes, turned on his turn signal, and proceeded to turn left into a driveway as he planned to ask the workers he saw for directions.
George Green was traveling the speed limit behind Mr. Smith. He noticed that he was coming quickly upon Mr. Smith's vehicle as he saw brake lights. Rather than slowing his vehicle, Mr. Green immediately proceeded to pass Mr. Smith. He turned on his left signal to indicate that he was entering the left-hand lane to pass on the left. He did not honk his horn.
As Mr. Green's vehicle was in the left-hand lane with the front of his vehicle approximately aligned with the rear-tires of Mr. Smith's vehicle, Mr. Smith suddenly turned left. The point of impact to Mr. Green's vehicle was the right front headlight. The point of impact to Mr. Smith's vehicle was the driver-side door. At the location of the impact, the vehicles were approaching a steep hill, which impeded the view of oncoming traffic.
Mr. Smith never saw Mr. Green, nor did he see a turn signal. He did not hear Mr. Green honk his horn.
Please determine which driver had the right-of-way and then analyze whether the driver with the right-of-way was partially at fault in contributing to the accident. Please consider the attached documents in your analysis.
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "States that Indiana law prohibits passing upon approach of a crest that obstructs the driver's view.",
"sources": "Indiana Code 9-21-8-8.pdf",
"justification": "Under Indiana Code 9-21-8-8(b)(1): A vehicle may not be driven to the left side of the roadway when approaching the crest of a grade or upon a curve in the highway where the view of the person who drives the vehicle is obstructed within a distance that creates a hazard if another vehicle might approach from the opposite direction. In this situation, although another vehicle was not, in fact, approaching from the opposite direction, Indiana law prohibits driving a vehicle on the left side of the road on approaching a crest where the view is obstructed. Therefore, Mr. Green should not have initiated the pass in this area of the roadway and it was not a lawful pass.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "States that Indiana law requires a vehicle being passed to yield the right of way to a passing vehicle on audible signal.",
"sources": "Indiana Code 9-21-8-5.pdf",
"justification": "Under Indiana law, a person who drives an overtaken vehicle shall give way to the right in favor of the overtaking vehicle on audible signal and may not increase the speed of the overtaken vehicle until completely passed by the overtaking vehicle. (Indiana Code 9-21-8-5 (2)). Here, Mr. Smith had the right of way as the lead vehicle travelling in the same direction as Mr. Green. Under Indiana law, upon Mr. Green's initiation of the pass, Mr. Smith would only have been required to 'give way' or yield the right-of-way if Mr. Green honked the horn and provided the requisite audible signal. As no audible signal was provided, Mr. Smith still had the right-of-way. (IC 9-21-8-5 (2)).",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "States that Indiana law requires vehicles making left-turns to yield to oncoming vehicles proceeding in the opposite direction.",
"sources": "Indiana Code 9-21-8-30.pdf",
"justification": "Under Indiana Code 9-21-8-30, '[a] person who drives a vehicle within an intersection intending to turn to the left shall yield the right-of-way to a vehicle approaching from the opposite direction that is within the intersection or so close to the intersection as to constitute an immediate hazard.' As noted in the prompt, Mr. Smith was making a left turn from a two-lane road into a driveway, when Mr. Green came up from behind him and attempted to pass. Indiana law governing left turns required Mr. Smith to yield to oncoming traffic coming from the opposite direction. The law is silent as to any requirement for a left-turning vehicle to yield to a vehicle approaching from the rear and proceeding in the same direction.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "Concludes that Mr. Smith (the overtaken vehicle) had the right-of-way.",
"sources": "Indiana Code 9-21-8-5.pdf Indiana Code 9-21-8-8.pdf Indiana Code 9-21-8-30.pdf",
"justification": "As noted above, Mr. Green was prohibited from driving in the left-hand lane due to the approaching hill/crest that obstructed the vision. As such, he did not complete a lawful pass. (IC 9-21-8-8-(b)(1)). Additionally, an overtaken vehicle must yield the right-of-way to an overtaking vehicle upon audible signal. Here, Mr. Green (the overtaking vehicle) did not provide audible signal. Therefore, Mr. Smith was not required to yield the right-of-way and he maintained the right-of-way. (IC 9-21-8-5). Finally, the law governing left-turns requires the turning vehicle to yield to 'oncoming vehicles' approaching from the opposite direction. (IC 9-21-8-30). Here, Mr. Green was not an 'oncoming vehicle' and he was proceeding in the same direction. There is no reference in the law governing left-turns to require Mr. Smith to yield to a vehicle that is approaching from the rear and proceeding in the same direction.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
2,
3,
1
]
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "States that Mr. Smith breached defensive driving duties for improper look out prior to initiating the left turn.",
"sources": "Indiana Code 9-21-8-24.pdf",
"justification": "Under Indiana law, Mr. Smith was prohibited from slowing or changing direction of the vehicle unless the movement could be made with reasonable safety. (IC 9-21-8-4). Mr. Smith slowed the vehicle and, although he did use a turn signal, he did not ensure that the turn could be made safely before he turned. A driver has a duty to ensure that the movement can be made with reasonable safety prior to changing course, per Indiana Code 9-21-8-4. As Mr. Smith did not have a proper look out to ensure that the turn could be made with reasonable safety, Mr. Smith breached this duty by turning without even seeing Mr. Green's vehicle attempting to pass him.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "Concludes that Mr. Smith's recovery will be reduced as he is partially at fault.",
"sources": "Indiana Code 34-51-2-5.pdf Indiana Code 34-51-2-6.pdf",
"justification": "Per Indiana law, '[i]n an action based on fault, any contributory fault chargeable to the claimant diminishes proportionately the amount awarded as compensatory damages for an injury attributable to the claimant's contributory fault, but does not bar recovery except as provided in section 6 of this chapter.' (IC 34-51-2-5). If a claimant is found to be 51% or more at fault, the claimant is barred from recovery. However, if the claimant is found to be 50% or less at fault, the plaintiff may recover, but damages are reduced in proportion to the comparative fault of the plaintiff. (IC 34-51-2-6). As noted, although Mr. Smith had the right-of-way, he contributed to the accident in failing to have a proper look out before executing the left turn. As such, Mr. Smith's recovery will be reduced by the percentage of fault attributed in contributing to the accident. (IC 34-51-2-5). If the trier of fact finds that Mr. Smith's failure to keep a proper look out and failure to ensure that the left turn could be made safely was greater than Mr. Green's fault, Mr. Smith would be barred from recovery. (IC 34-51-2-6).",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
}
}
|
documents/1078/Indiana Code 34-51-2-5.pdf
documents/1078/Indiana Code 34-51-2-6.pdf
documents/1078/Indiana Code 9-21-8-24.pdf
documents/1078/Indiana Code 9-21-8-30.pdf
documents/1078/Indiana Code 9-21-8-5.pdf
documents/1078/Indiana Code 9-21-8-8.pdf
|
1,148
|
Legal
|
Frank Bader is a claimant for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits. His claim has been denied twice, and he has appealed the latest denial. He has submitted a new Medical Opinion Statement from his treating physician, Dr. Samantha Hauler, with his appeal.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) assigned to Mr. Bader’s case is preparing for the hearing. Before the ALJ reviews the case file himself, he has requested a pre-hearing brief. Utilizing the attached documents and applicable law, draft a brief for the ALJ about Mr. Bader’s case. The ALJ wants the brief to discuss each step of the five-step sequential evaluation process in Mr. Bader’s case and determine at which step the Social Security Administration should find Mr. Bader disabled.
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "Determines that the Social Security Administration should not direct a decision that Mr. Bader is disabled at step one of the five-step sequential evaluation process.",
"sources": "Frank Bader Work History.pdf",
"justification": "The first step of the five-step sequential evaluation process is described in Program Operations Manual System (POMS) DI 22001.001. The question at step one is whether 'the claimant [is] engaging in SGA\u2026If yes, the claimant is not disabled\u2026If no, the sequential evaluation continues.' https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0422001001 POMS DI 25501.390 states that 'work is 'substantial' if it involves engaging in significant physical or mental activities, or a combination of both. Work is gainful if it is: \u2022 performed for pay or profit; or \u2022 the kind of work usually done for pay or profit, whether or not a profit is realized. Work performed on a part-time basis may be SGA. Generally, we use earnings guidelines to decide if work is SGA.' https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.NSF/lnx/0425501390 The source 'Frank Bader Work History.pdf' confirms that, since 2018, Mr. Bader has not engaged in SGA, as he hasn't worked and made any earnings. In 2018, he was engaging in SGA, as he earned far more each month than the 2018 SGA monthly amount of $1,180. https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/sga.html Therefore, the Social Security Administration should not direct a decision that Mr. Bader is disabled at step one of the five-step sequential evaluation process. This is because the answer to step one is no, and the sequential evaluation must continue.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "Determines that the Social Security Administration should not direct a decision that Mr. Bader is disabled at step two of the five-step sequential evaluation process.",
"sources": "Frank Bader Case File.pdf",
"justification": "The second step of the five-step sequential evaluation process is described in POMS DI 22001.001. The question at step two is whether the claimant has a 'medically determinable impairment (MDI) (or combination of MDIs) that is both severe and meets the duration requirement\u2026If no, the claimant is not disabled\u2026If yes, sequential evaluation continues.' https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0422001001 POMS DI 24505.001 provides guidance on the definition of a not severe impairment. 'At the second step of sequential evaluation, it must be determined whether medical evidence establishes a physical or mental impairment or combination of impairments of sufficient severity as to be the basis of a finding of inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity (SGA). When medical evidence establishes only a slight abnormality or a combination of slight abnormalities which would have no more than a minimum effect on an individual's ability to work, such impairment(s) will be found 'not severe,' and a determination of 'not disabled' will be made without consideration of vocational factors. In such an instance, the person's impairment(s) would have no more than a minimal effect on his or her physical or mental ability(ies) to perform basic work activities, so a determination of 'not disabled' would result even if the individual's age, education, or work experience were specifically considered.' https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0424505001 The source 'Frank Bader Case File.pdf' is written by Mr. Bader's treating physician Dr. Samantha Hauler. With the help of detailed medical findings, this source describes Mr. Bader's medical impairment, which is Osteoarthritis in both of his knees. Dr. Hauler specifically states that 'Mr. Bader suffers from Osteoarthritis that affects both of his knees, and as such, both of his lower extremities. This impairment has a major effect on his physical ability to perform basic work activities during an 8-hour workday.' Based on this statement, Mr. Bader's impairment must be classified as 'severe.' As for duration, POMS DI 25505.030 states that 'in most cases in which evidence supports a finding of disability, it will be clear whether the MDI(s) is expected to result in death or has lasted or is expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months from the onset of disability.' https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0425505030 In the source 'Frank Bader Case File.pdf' Dr. Hauler confirms that, since 2018, Mr. Bader has suffered from an MDI: Osteoarthritis in both of his knees. Mr. Bader's MDI meets the duration requirement for step 2, as he's suffered for a continuous period of far longer than 12 months. Therefore, the Social Security Administration should not direct a decision that Mr. Bader is disabled at step two of the five-step sequential evaluation process. This is because the answer to step two is yes, and the sequential evaluation must continue.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "Determines that the Social Security Administration should not direct a decision that Mr. Bader is disabled at step three of the five-step sequential evaluation process.",
"sources": "Frank Bader Case File.pdf",
"justification": "The third step of the five-step sequential evaluation process is described in POMS DI 22001.001. The question at step three is whether the claimant has 'an impairment(s) that meets a listing, or is medically equal to a listing in appendix 1, and meets the duration requirement\u2026If yes, the claimant is disabled\u2026If no, the sequential evaluation continues.' https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0422001001 Criterion 2 (27275) previously discussed the duration of Mr. Bader's MDI. In the source 'Frank Bader Case File.pdf,' Dr. Hauler confirms that Mr. Bader has suffered from Osteoarthritis in both knees since 2018. Therefore, Mr. Bader has suffered from his MDI for longer than the 12 months that is necessary for the duration requirement. The appropriate listing for Osteoarthritis is Listing 1.18 \u2013 Abnormality of a major joint(s) in any extremity. This listing can only be met if 'documented by A, B, C and D: A. Chronic joint pain or stiffness. AND B. Abnormal motion, instability, or immobility of the affected joint(s). AND C. Anatomical abnormality of the affected joint(s) noted on: 1. Physical examination (for example, subluxation, contracture, or bony or fibrous ankylosis); or 2. Imaging (for example, joint space narrowing, bony destruction, or ankylosis or arthrodesis of the affected joint). AND D. Impairment-related physical limitation of musculoskeletal functioning that has lasted, or is expected to last, for a continuous period of at least 12 months, and medical documentation of at least one of the following: 1. A documented medical need (see 1.00C6a) for a walker, bilateral canes, or bilateral crutches (see 1.00C6d) or a wheeled and seated mobility device involving the use of both hands (see 1.00C6e(i)); or 2. An inability to use one upper extremity to independently initiate, sustain, and complete work-related activities involving fine and gross movements (see 1.00E4), and a documented medical need (see 1.00C6a) for a one-handed hand-held assistive device (see 1.00C6d) that requires the use of the other upper extremity or a wheeled and seated mobility device involving the use of one hand (see 1.00C6e(ii)); or 3. An inability to use both upper extremities to the extent that neither can be used to independently initiate, sustain, and complete work-related activities involving fine and gross movements (see 1.00E4).' https://www.ssa.gov/disability/professionals/bluebook/1.00-Musculoskeletal-Adult.htm#1_18 The source 'Frank Bader Case File.pdf' provides medical evidence for elements A, B, and C that are required to meet Listing 1.18. Unfortunately, element D cannot be met in this case, as Mr. Bader does not use any assistive devices or have any issues with his upper extremities. Therefore, the Social Security Administration should not direct a decision that Mr. Bader is disabled at step three of the five-step sequential evaluation process. This is because the answer to step three is no, and the sequential evaluation must continue.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
2
]
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "Determines that the Social Security Administration should not direct a decision that Mr. Bader is disabled at step four of the five-step sequential evaluation process.",
"sources": "Frank Bader Work History.pdf",
"justification": "The fourth step of the five-step sequential evaluation process is described in POMS DI 22001.001. The questions at step four are about past relevant work (PRW). The questions are whether 'the claimant retain[s] the capacity to perform any PRW as they actually performed it' and whether 'the claimant retains the capacity to perform any PRW as generally performed in the national economy\u2026If the answer to either question is yes, the claimant is not disabled\u2026If the answer to both questions is no, the sequential evaluation continues.' https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0422001001 Criterion 5 (28420) establishes that Mr. Bader does not have any PRW, as he has not worked in the past 5 years. Therefore, the Social Security Administration should not direct a decision that Mr. Bader is disabled at step four of the five-step sequential evaluation process. This is because both answers to step four are no, and the sequential evaluation must continue.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
5
]
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "Identifies that Mr. Bader does not have any past relevant work.",
"sources": "Frank Bader Work History.pdf",
"justification": "SSR 24-2p reflects the 2024 changes to the law and defines the term PRW. SSR 24-2p states that 'PRW is work that an individual has done within the past 5 years, that was SGA, and that lasted long enough for the individual to learn to do it. Work that the individual started and stopped in fewer than 30 calendar days is not PRW.' https://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/rulings/di/02/SSR2024-02-di-02.html The source 'Frank Bader Work History.pdf' confirms that Mr. Bader does not have any PRW. His last job was as a Construction worker in 2018, which was more than 5 years ago.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "Determines that the Social Security Administration should direct a decision that Mr. Bader is disabled at step five of the five-step sequential evaluation process.",
"sources": "Frank Bader Work History.pdf and Frank Bader Case File.pdf",
"justification": "The fifth step of the five-step sequential evaluation process is described in POMS DI 22001.001. The question at step five is whether 'the claimant [has] the ability to make an adjustment to any other work, considering the claimant's RFC, age, education, and work experience\u2026If yes, the claimant is not disabled\u2026If no, the claimant is disabled.' https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0422001001 SSR 24-1p explains that 'if we find at the fourth step of [the sequential evaluation] process that an individual cannot perform any PRW given their RFC, or that the individual has no PRW, we will decide whether the individual can adjust to other work at step five of the process. We have three medical-vocational profiles that show an inability to adjust to other work. At step five, our adjudicators must consider these medical-vocational profiles before referring to the medical-vocational guidelines. The three medical-vocational profiles are: (1) arduous unskilled work, (2) no work, and (3) lifetime commitment. If an individual's medical and vocational factors match the criteria of a medical-vocational profile, we find the individual disabled.' https://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/rulings/di/02/SSR2024-01-di-02.html Criterion 7 (28421) establishes that Mr. Bader meets the five requirements of the lifetime commitment profile: 1. Mr. Bader is not working at SGA level. 2. Mr. Bader has a lifetime commitment of 33 years to construction work, a semi-skilled job with no transferable skills. 3. Mr. Bader can no longer perform this past work, as it was performed at the heavy exertional level and his severe MDI prevents him from meeting the lifting requirements of heavy work. 4. Mr. Bader is closely approaching retirement age, as he is 61 years old. 5. Mr. Bader has no more than a limited education, as he only completed seventh grade. Therefore, the Social Security Administration should direct a decision that Mr. Bader is disabled at step five of the five-step sequential evaluation process.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
7
]
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "Identifies that Mr. Bader meets the requirements of the lifetime commitment profile.",
"sources": "Frank Bader Work History.pdf and Frank Bader Case File.pdf",
"justification": "The lifetime commitment profile is described in detail in POMS DI 25010.001 states that 'The lifetime commitment profile demonstrates the inability to make an adjustment to other work for an individual who: \u2022 is not working at SGA level, and \u2022 has a lifetime commitment (30 years or more) to a field of work that is unskilled, or that is skilled or semi-skilled but provided no transferable skills, and \u2022 can no longer perform this past work because of a severe MDI(s), and \u2022 is closely approaching retirement age (age 60 or older), and \u2022 has no more than a limited education.' https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.NSF/lnx/0425010001 Criterion 1 (27274) discussed Mr. Bader's lack of engaging in SGA since 2018. This was based on the source 'Frank Bader Work History.pdf,' which confirms that Mr. Bader has not had a job that was at SGA level since 2018. The source 'Frank Bader Work History.pdf' also confirms that Mr. Bader worked for 33 years as a Construction Worker with no transferable skills. Directory of Occupational Titles (DOT) 869.664-014 defines a Construction Worker as a semi-skilled job performed at the heavy exertional level. Therefore, Mr. Bader has met the second requirement for the lifetime commitment profile. https://occupationalinfo.org/86/869664014.html Mr. Bader can no longer perform his past work at the heavy exertional level due to the physical limitations from his severe medically determinable impairment of Osteoarthritis in both knees. In the source 'Frank Bader Case File.pdf,' Dr. Hauler limits Mr. Bader to lifting 25 to 50 pounds during an 8-hour workday. According to CFR \u00a7\u2009416.967, work at the heavy exertional level requires 'lifting no more than 100 pounds at a time with frequent lifting or carrying of objects weighing up to 50 pounds.' https://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/cfr20/416/416-0967.htm The source 'Frank Bader Work History.pdf' states that Mr. Bader was born on May 6, 1964. This date of birth makes Mr. Bader a person closely approaching retirement age, as he is more than 60 years old. POMS DI 25001.001A.16. defines limited education as 'formal schooling completed at the seventh through 11th grade level.' Because Mr. Bader only completed the seventh grade, he meets the definition of having a limited education. https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.NSF/lnx/0425001001#a3",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1
]
}
}
|
documents/1148/Frank Bader Case File.pdf
documents/1148/Frank Bader Work History.pdf
|
1,167
|
Legal
|
Mr. B is seeking legal representation for a capital murder in Fulton County, Georgia. Mr. B was diagnosed with auditory hallucination as a teenager. He has been in and out of mental health facilities since his diagnosis. Most of his stays were involuntary, as he would commit petty crimes around the city of Atlanta during his hallucinations. His prior crimes include petty theft, disorderly conduct, and trespassing.
On the day of the murder, he states that he had not taken his medications for a few weeks. He states that he was hearing things like “kill the next person you see wearing a black t-shirt". As a result, he complied with the voices and killed a stranger who matched the description of his hallucinations. The heinous murder was caught on camera, and a massive manhunt ensued. However, Mr. B was not found until seven months later, because he had fled Georgia by Greyhound to Nebraska based on instructions from his hallucinations. He was caught when he voluntarily went to seek mental health treatment and was extradited to Georgia.
Taking the attached document into consideration, please provide a legal memorandum analyzing whether an insanity plea from Mr. B is likely to be successful based on the facts stated above.
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "Identifies that a person cannot be guilty of a crime if they did not have the mental capacity to distinguish between right and wrong at the time the crime was committed.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Under GA Code \u00a7 16-3-2: 'A person shall not be found guilty of a crime if, at the time of the act, omission, or negligence constituting the crime, the person did not have mental capacity to distinguish between right and wrong in relation to such act, omission, or negligence'. https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/title-16/chapter-3/article-1/section-16-3-2/",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "Identifies that a person cannot be guilty of a crime if they acted because of a delusional compulsion at the time the crime was committed.",
"sources": "The State v. Wierson.pdf",
"justification": "GA Code \u00a7 16-3-3 provides: 'A person shall not be found guilty of a crime when, at the time of the act, omission, or negligence constituting the crime, the person, because of mental disease, injury, or congenital deficiency, acted as he did because of a delusional compulsion as to such act which overmastered his will to resist committing the crime.' https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/title-16/chapter-3/article-1/section-16-3-3/ In State v. Wierson, S24G1299 (May 28, 2025) the court noted that 'the statutory defense of delusional compulsion is available if there is evidence 'that the defendant was laboring under a delusion, that the act itself was connected with the delusion and furthermore that the delusion would, if true, justify the act'.' (pg.19)",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "Identifies that Mr. B's failure to take his medication is not relevant to whether the insanity defenses are available to him.",
"sources": "The State v. Wierson.pdf",
"justification": "In Wierson v. The State, the court stated: 'In short, the plain language of these statutes, their context, and their long history all align: the insanity defenses are available even to a person who has 'voluntarily' induced the relevant mental state. And applied to this case, that would mean that whether Wierson stopped taking her medication some weeks before the accident is not relevant to whether the statutory insanity defenses are available to her'. State v. Wierson, S24G1299 (May 28, 2025) (pg. 17) https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/6838ee016810eefbb04b3316 Thus, the fact of Mr. B's voluntary failure to take his medication has no relevance to whether or not an insanity plea is available to him. If the State seeks to present evidence of Mr.B's failure to take his medication, Mr. B can object.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "Identifies that a successful insanity plea requires expert testimony from a qualified medical expert.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Under GA Code \u00a7 17-7-130.1, 'at the trial of a criminal case in which the defendant intends to interpose the defense of insanity, evidence may be introduced to prove the defendant's sanity or insanity at the time at which he is alleged to have committed the offense charged in the indictment or information. When notice of an insanity defense is filed, the court shall appoint at least one psychiatrist or licensed psychologist to examine the defendant and to testify at the trial. This testimony shall follow the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution and for the defense, including testimony of any medical experts employed by the state or by the defense. The medical witnesses appointed by the court may be cross-examined by both the prosecution and the defense, and each side may introduce evidence in rebuttal to the testimony of such a medical witness'. Thus, a qualified medical expert will have to testify that Mr. B met the definition of either insanity tests at the time of the commission of the murder. https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/title-17/chapter-7/article-6/part-2/section-17-7-130-1/",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "Identifies that Mr. B's insanity defense based on delusional compulsion will likely be unsuccessful.",
"sources": "The State v. Wierson.pdf",
"justification": "Under GA Code \u00a7 16-3-3, three elements must be met for insanity based on delusional compulsion: 1. The defendant was laboring under a delusion; 2. The criminal act was connected with the delusion, and 3. The delusion was as to a fact that, if true, would have justified the act. https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/title-16/chapter-3/article-1/section-16-3-3/ See also, State v. Wierson, S24G1299 (May 28, 2025) where the court noted that 'the statutory defense of delusional compulsion is available if there is evidence 'that the defendant was laboring under a delusion, that the act itself was connected with the delusion and furthermore that the delusion would, if true, justify the act'.' (pg.19) Mr. B will be able to satisfy the first two elements. First, he was laboring under a delusion in the form of auditory hallucinations that prompted him to commit murder. However, he will not be able to meet the third element. The delusion told him to kill someone who was wearing a black t-shirt. The fact of the delusion was that a person was wearing a black t-shirt. There is nothing about a person wearing a black t-shirt that would, in any situation, justify murder. As a result, this insanity defense will likely be unsuccessful.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
2
]
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "Concludes that Mr. B's insanity defense based on an inability to distinguish between right and wrong will likely be successful.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Under GA Code O.C.G.A. \u00a7 16-3-2, a person is not criminally responsible if, at the time of the act, they lacked the mental capacity to distinguish between right and wrong in relation to such act. https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/title-16/chapter-3/article-1/section-16-3-2/ Assuming that a qualified medical expert provides testimony confirming that Mr. B lacked the mental capacity to distinguish between right and wrong at the time of the murder, Mr. B has a significant chance of success using this defense. Mr. B was experiencing auditory hallucinations at the time of the murder, and he thus lacked the mental capacity to distinguish between whether his act was right or wrong. He lacked the mental capacity to make such a distinction at the time of the murder, and thus will likely be successful.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1,
4
]
}
}
|
documents/1167/The State v. Wierson.pdf
|
1,184
|
Legal
|
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is conducting a remedial action under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) to remove contaminated soil from a former wood treatment yard near Pendleton, Oregon. The cleanup is being conducted pursuant to a CERCLA record of decision (ROD). The response action selected in the ROD includes "dig and haul" as the primary cleanup method. The ROD contains a list of state and federal environmental applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) that the cleanup must attain, as required by Section 121(d) of CERCLA. The ROD requires that the EPA meet 'Substantive Portions of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act,' 'Substantive Portions of ORS 97.745.'
Prior to the cleanup, the EPA remedial project manager (RPM) assigned to the case contacted the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), who referred her to the applicable Oregon State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). The RPM, unsure of whether there would be any impact on historic places, contacted the SHPO to discuss the cleanup. After a brief phone call discussing the matter, the SHPO and RPM agreed that, due to the Site's proximity to a schoolyard listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the EPA should contract with an archeologist to be present on site in case any historical artifacts were discovered during the cleanup. The EPA memorialized this in writing in the administrative record.
Midway through the cleanup, the EPA was in the process of excavating contaminated soil when the RPM discovered what appeared to be, and was later confirmed to be, portions of a cairn. Though the cleanup was not on land of tribal significance, the archeologist immediately stopped the cleanup for analysis of the cairn. It was later determined to have been built by Celilo Wy'am indians. The EPA's onsite archeologist consulted on the removal of the cairn from the dig site, and the cairn was transferred to the SHPO. The SHPO later transferred it to Oregon State University for restoration and display. No portion of the cairn was damaged during this process.
A member of the Celilo Wy'am Tribe has recently learned about the events and has approached our firm for guidance. Please draft an analysis of the following:
1. Was it proper for the EPA to conduct the cleanup without undergoing formal review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)?
2. Was it proper for the EPA to transfer the cairn to the SHPO?
Please reference the attached documents in the analysis.
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "Identifies that only substantive requirements of ARARs must be met for on-site CERCLA actions.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "For on-site CERCLA response actions, permits are not required: 'No Federal, State, or local permit shall be required for the portion of any removal or remedial action conducted entirely onsite.' 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 9621(e)(1); see also NCP, 'No federal, state, or local permits are required for on-site response actions.' 40 C.F.R. \u00a7 300.400(e)(1). At the same time, a selected remedial action must, upon completion, 'at least attain [the] legally applicable or relevant and appropriate standard, requirement, criteria, or limitation (ARARs).' 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 9621(d)(2)(A); NCP directs identification of ARARs on a site-specific basis. 40 C.F.R. \u00a7 300.400(g)(1)\u2013(2). The ROD expressly lists ARARs as 'Substantive Portions of Section 106 of the NHPA' and 'Substantive Portions of ORS 97.745,' and the selected remedy is an on-site 'dig-and-haul.' Application. Because this is an on-site CERCLA remedial action, procedural/permit steps are not required, but EPA must still meet the substantive portions of the identified ARARs (NHPA \u00a7 106; ORS 97.745). https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/9621 https://semspub.epa.gov/work/HQ/174076.pdf",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "Identifies that NHPA consultation is a procedural requirement.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Section 106 of NHPA, 54 U.S.C. 306108, requires that federal agencies take into account the effect of their projects on any historic property, and provide the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) a reasonable opportunity to comment with regard to the undertaking. Federal agencies must also undertake planning to minimize any harm to historic places posed by their undertakings. 54 U.S. Code 306107. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/54/306108 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/54/306107 Consultation procedures are set out in 36 CFR Part 800. Per the ACHP's own guidance, an agency conducting a CERCLA action may - but is not required - to follow the Section 106 review process. https://www.achp.gov/coordination-cercla-faq In this case, the EPA alerted the SHPO (the individual who administers the NHPA at the state level) of the action, and the SHPO and EPA jointly determined that the project may affect historic property given its proximity to a school listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Importantly, the cleanup was not on a land of tribal significance, meaning that EPA did not have an obligation to consult with any Tribe or Tribal Historic Preservation Officer. After its discussion with the SHPO, the EPA agreed to contract with an archeologist and documented the conversation. This meets the requirement of Section 106 that EPA provide the ACHP (through the SHPO) a reasonable opportunity to comment. The remaining Section 106 review steps are procedural, and EPA was therefore not obligated to meet those requirements as ARARs under CERCLA. It was therefore proper for EPA to conduct the cleanup without undergoing formal NHPA review.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1
]
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "Concludes that EPA was not required to engage in formal NHPA review because it is a procedural requirement.",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "EPA must meet the substantive portions of ARARs. This is reflected in the prompt's statement that the ROD states that EPA must attain 'Substantive Portions of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.' EPA was therefore not required to meet procedural obligations. NHPA contains both substantive and procedural requirements. Formal review is procedural by nature. Accordingly, it was proper for EPA to conduct the cleanup without undergoing formal review under Section 106 of NHPA.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1,
2
]
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "Identifies that ORS 97.745(2)(a) prohibits the possession of native Indian artifacts, human remains or funerary objects having been taken from a native Indian cairn or burial.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Per ORS 97.745(2)(a): Except as authorized by the appropriate Indian tribe, no person shall: (a) Possess any native Indian artifacts, human remains or funerary object having been taken from a native Indian cairn or burial in a manner other than that authorized under ORS 97.750 (Permitted acts). Here, EPA briefly took possession of the item of an Indian cairn. The prompt requests analysis of whether this act was permissible. If prohibited by this section of ORS 97.745, it was not permissible. https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_97.745",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "Identifies that ORS 97.745(1) requires that inadvertently discovered Indian cairns must be reinterred under the supervision of the appropriate Indian tribe.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "ORS 97.745 includes a requirement that 'Persons disturbing native Indian cairns or burials through inadvertence, including by construction, mining, logging or agricultural activity, shall at their own expense reinter the human remains or funerary object under the supervision of the appropriate Indian tribe.' Here, the EPA discovered a cairn which was later determined to be built by the Celilo Wy'Am Tribe during the cleanup. Under ORS 97.745(1), such objects must be reinterred under the supervision of the relevant Tribe. This must be done at the person who discovers the item's expense. https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_97.745",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "Identifies that the definition of 'Indian Tribes' limits the applicability of ORS 97.745 to specific tribes.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "ORS 97.740 contains definitions applicable to ORS 97.745. Relevant here is the definition of 'Indian Tribe' as 'any tribe of Indians recognized by the Secretary of the Interior or listed in the Klamath Termination Act, 25 U.S.C. 3564 et seq., or listed in the Western Oregon Indian Termination Act, 25 U.S.C. 3691 et seq., if the traditional cultural area of the tribe includes Oregon lands.' Thus, if a tribe is not federally-recognized, nor listed in the Klamath Termination or Western Oregon Indian Termination Act, the requirements of ORS 97.745 do not apply to that tribe. https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_97.740",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "States that the Celilo Wy'am tribe is not a federally recognized tribe for the purposes of ORS 97.745.",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "ORS 97.740(3) defines 'Indian tribe' as a tribe 'recognized by the Secretary of the Interior' or listed in specified termination acts, if the tribe's traditional cultural area includes Oregon lands. The object was identified as a cairn built by Celilo Wy'am Indians and the question is whether that group qualifies as an 'Indian tribe' for ORS 97.745 purposes (e.g., supervision/authorization). (Prompt facts). Because ORS 97.740(3) ties coverage to federal recognition (or the termination-act listings), whether Celilo Wy'am is covered turns on that status\u2014not on cultural association alone. Oregon's official listing of nine federally recognized tribes (e.g., CTUIR for the Pendleton area) does not include 'Celilo Wy'am' as a separate tribe, indicating the 'appropriate Indian tribe' under ORS 97.745 would be the relevant federally recognized tribe whose traditional area includes the site.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "Concludes that it was proper for EPA to transfer the cairn to the SHPO.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "The requirements of ORS 97.745 deal with artifacts, including cairns, of Indian Tribes. ORS 97.740 provides a definition of 'Indian Tribes.' The Ceililo Wy'Am tribe does not meet this definition. Thus, the EPA's actions - while morally questionable - are not strictly prohibited by the law.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
7,
4,
5,
6
]
}
}
|
documents/1184/1184_ORS97.740.pdf
documents/1184/1184_ORS97.745.pdf
documents/1184/42U.S.C.9621.pdf
documents/1184/54U.S.C.306107.pdf
documents/1184/54U.S.C.306108.pdf
|
1,189
|
Legal
|
Chen operates an immigration consulting firm in California through an LLC. She is the sole owner. The business generates $1 million in annual revenue, with a net income of $550,000 after deducting office rent, payroll and other expenses. She estimates that the net assets of her company are worth around $20,000, mostly consisting of office furniture and appliances. She is considering relocating to Nashville, Tennessee and moving her business there in Jan 2024.
Chen wants to evaluate the tax consequences of the relocation. Assuming the revenue and net income remain the same after relocation, and all the business will come from Tennssee after relocation, how would her overall tax burden change in terms of state level income tax (Chen is single) and LLC-related costs? Are there any ways to optimize Tennessee LLC related costs to make the relocation more financially worthwhile?
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "States that for a net income of $550,000, Chen's estimated California income tax liability would be $50,758 (acceptable value is 50,758).",
"sources": "",
"justification": "A Limited Liability Company (LLC) is generally viewed as a pass-through entity in California for income tax purposes, meaning the owner (member) is taxed on the income. Source: Franchise Tax Board of State of California has published guidelines for LLC: 'A disregarded entity (for federal purposes), if it has only one member Single member limited liability company (SMLLC)...An LLC must have the same classification for both California and federal tax purposes.' https://www.ftb.ca.gov/file/business/types/limited-liability-company/index.html Chen is the owner of the LLC, therefore in California, she has to pay personal income tax for the $550,000 net earning of the LLC. California government publishes tax brackets and provides a tax calculator to calculate personal income tax. Using the calculator and applying the 2024 tax bracket, one can arrive that the estimated California state income tax for a taxable income of $550,000 is $50,758. Source: https://webapp.ftb.ca.gov/taxcalc/Home/",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "States that in Tennessee, Chen does not have to pay personal income tax for earnings from the LLC.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Tennessee has no state personal income tax, this is the biggest advantage for moving to Tennessee, especially for high income persons. Source: Tennessee Constitution, Article II, section 28: 'Notwithstanding the authority to tax privileges or any other authority set forth in this Constitution, the Legislature shall not levy, authorize or otherwise permit any state or local tax upon payroll or earned personal income or any state or local tax measured by payroll or earned personal income; however, nothing contained herein shall be construed as prohibiting any tax in effect on January 1, 2011, or adjustment of the rate of such tax.' https://law.justia.com/constitution/tennessee/article-ii/section-28/",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "States that in California, Chen's LLC has to pay an annual franchise tax of $800 (acceptable value is 800).",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Every LLC that is doing business or organized in California must pay an annual tax of $800. See https://www.ftb.ca.gov/file/business/types/limited-liability-company/index.html",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "States that in California, Chen's LLC has to pay an annual LLC fee of $6,000 (acceptable value is 6,000).",
"sources": "",
"justification": "If an LLC in California makes more than $250,000, you will have to pay a fee. Chen indicates her LLC makes $1 million a year, for the bracket of $1,000,000 to $4,999,999, the annual LLC fee is $6,000. https://www.ftb.ca.gov/file/business/types/limited-liability-company/index.html",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "States that in Tennessee, Chen's LLC has to pay excise tax at the rate of 6.5% of its net earnings (acceptable value is 6.5%).",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Based on information published by the Government of Tennessee, 'If you are a corporation, limited partnership, limited liability company, or business trust chartered, qualified, or registered in Tennessee or doing business in this state, then you must register for and pay franchise and excise taxes.' 'The excise tax is based on the taxpayer's net earnings or income for the tax year.' Source: https://www.tn.gov/revenue/taxes/franchise---excise-tax.html Excise tax is 6.5% of Tennessee net earnings. Source: https://www.tn.gov/revenue/taxes/franchise---excise-tax/due-dates-and-tax-rates.html Tennessee net earnings means your net earning for federal income tax purpose with Tennessee special adjustment. Source: https://revenue.support.tn.gov/hc/en-us/articles/360058272391-ET-1-Excise-Tax-Computation",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "States that in Tennessee, Chen's LLC has to pay franchise tax at the rate of 0.25% of the net worth, subject to a minimum of $100 per year (acceptable value is 0.25%).",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Based on information published by the Government of Tennessee, 'If you are a corporation, limited partnership, limited liability company, or business trust chartered, qualified, or registered in Tennessee or doing business in this state, then you must register for and pay franchise and excise taxes.' 'The minimum franchise tax is $100 and is payable if you are incorporated, domesticated, qualified, or otherwise registered through the Secretary of State to do business in Tennessee, regardless of whether the company is active or inactive.' Source: https://www.tn.gov/revenue/taxes/franchise---excise-tax.html Franchise is 0.25% of Tennessee net worth. Source: https://www.tn.gov/revenue/taxes/franchise---excise-tax/due-dates-and-tax-rates.html Tennessee net worth carries the ordinary meaning of net worth, i.e. total assets minus total liability. Source: https://revenue.support.tn.gov/hc/en-us/articles/360058275991-FT-1-Franchise-Tax-Computation",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "States that in Tennessee, Chen's LLC has to pay business tax based on its gross revenue.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Based on information published by the Government of Tennessee, 'if you conduct business within any county and/or incorporated municipality in Tennessee, and your business grosses $100,000 or more, then you should register for and remit business tax. Business tax consists of two separate taxes: the state business tax and the city business tax.' Source: https://www.tn.gov/revenue/taxes/business-tax.html Chen's immigration consulting service business grosses $1mm and falls under Class 3 for business tax purpose. The prompt does not indicate or imply it is a law firm, which would be exempt. Source: https://www.tn.gov/revenue/taxes/business-tax/classifications.html The business tax rates for Class 3 business are both 0.1875% at state level and Nashville city level. Source: https://www.tn.gov/revenue/taxes/business-tax/due-dates-and-tax-rates.html (State rate) https://library.municode.com/tn/metro_government_of_nashville_and_davidson_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CD_TIT5REFI_DIVIITA_CH5.16PRTA_ARTIIIBUTA_5.16.080TAIMTARAADOPFI (Nashville city rate, in section 5.16.080 it states that the state level statutory rates are adopted)",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "States that relocating to Tennessee gives Chen a tax saving of $17,958 for 2024 (acceptable value is 17,958).",
"sources": "",
"justification": "California tax burden for Chen and her LLC is $57,558 (personal income tax $50,758 + $800 franchise tax + $6,000 LLC fee). Tennessee tax burden includes LLC excise tax, franchise tax, and business tax. Excise tax is 6.5% of the annual net income, with a $550,000 net income, the excise tax is $35,750. Franchise tax is 0.25% of net worth, with a minimum of $100. Chen estimates that her net assets are worth $20,000, this will make the minimum $100 franchise tax apply. Business Tax is 0.1875% for state and 0.1875% for city level of the gross revenue. With a 1 million gross revenue, the total business tax is $3,750. Tennessee tax burden for Chen and her LLC is $39,600 This results in a tax saving of $17,958 for 2024.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1,
3,
2,
4,
5,
6,
9
]
},
"criterion 9": {
"description": "States that Chen can minimize the Tennessee franchise tax by strategically managing the balance sheet to minimize the value of the net assets.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "To optimize the Tennessee tax burdens, one way is to strategically manage the net worth of the LLC. She can keep renting offices, use her old furniture and computers from California instead of buying new ones in Tennessee. For a consulting business with light assets, Chen should be able to keep the net worth of the LLC under $40,000, thereby only have to pay a minimum $100 franchise tax per year (100/0.25% = 40,000).",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
6
]
},
"criterion 10": {
"description": "Recommends that Chen elect S-corporation status for the LLC to reduce excise tax liabilities.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Since the Tennessee excise tax is based on the net income of the LLC, the key to minimize the excise tax is to maximize expenses to keep the net income low. S-corporation allows a member of a LLC to pay herself both a reasonable salary and a dividend. The salary to Chen will constitute expenses, thus reducing the net income of the LLC. Electing S-corporation status would not reduce California tax in the same way because California imposes a 1.5% franchise tax on S-corporation's net income. For a $550,000 net income, it would be $8250 franchise tax for a S-corporation while California only charges a $6,000 LLC fee for a 1 million revenue business. Source: https://www.ftb.ca.gov/file/business/types/corporations/s-corporations.html It's kind of common knowledge in the industry that by electing S-corporation status for an LLC, the member can pay herself both a reasonable salary and dividends. People usually take advantage of S-corp to reduce self-employment tax, but in the excise tax context, it is also helpful since it adds expenses, thus reducing the net income. See for example: https://patrickaccounting.com/blog/s-corp-and-llc-in-tennessee-guide 'Pros of S Corp: ... Shareholders can receive both salaries and dividend payments, which can be beneficial for tax planning.' https://domyllc.com/basics-of-starting-an-s-corp-in-tennessee/ 'As the owner of an S corp, you will have the flexibility in choosing how to characterize income for tax purposes. You can be considered as an employee of the company so that you can pay yourself a salary. Additionally, you can pay yourself with dividends from the company or distributions that are either tax-free or have lower rates than the salary of an employee. With this, you can reduce self-employment tax liabilities.'",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
5
]
}
}
|
documents/1189/Franchise Tax Computation.pdf
|
1,226
|
Legal
|
The client is a Virginia logistics and packaging company ("Company") that specializes in designing and manufacturing custom crates for fragile and high-value goods. Company was recently contacted by a Virginia public university ("University") to design, build, and ship a protective wooden container ("Crate") for a student-engineered prototype ("Prototype") being sent to Dubai for an international academic exhibition.
University informed Company that the Prototype contains advanced sensor arrays and energy storage components fabricated together with a defense contractor under a Department of Energy ("DOE") grant. University emphasized that the contents are "not classified" but "should be treated with care." On their last call, University's procurement department requested that Company send a "fixed-price proposal including everything from Crate to Dubai," and provided Company with limited technical specifications for the Crate but not for the Prototype. University also asked that Company label the Crate under its own name and arrange insurance coverage to "avoid customs delays."
That said, Company's general manager is nervous about taking responsibility for a shipment of this nature, particularly given the overseas destination and the sensitive, government-involved, and unique (and likely expensive) nature of the Prototype. Company has also never dealt with a public university procurement office and is unfamiliar with potential special rules that might apply.
To that end, prepare an agreement ("Agreement") that resolves the risks clearly implied by the facts and provides Company with protection against regulatory, operational, and liability exposure, while ensuring that the arrangement remains commercially workable and enforceable under applicable law, including the attached federal and state statutes and regulations.
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "Conditions University's payment obligations on the availability of appropriated funds.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Virginia law limits public universities to contracts funded by appropriations authorized by law (Va. Code \u00a7 23.1-1301). Conditioning payment on available appropriations preserves enforceability and prevents an ultra vires obligation, which is standard practice in public contracting, and ensures Company is not relying on funds University cannot legally spend. https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title23.1/chapter13/section23.1-1301/",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "Designates University as the exporter of record.",
"sources": "15 CFR 758.3.pdf",
"justification": "Under 15 C.F.R. \u00a7 758.3(a), the exporter of record bears responsibility for obtaining licenses and filing export documents, so because the Prototype is owned and controlled by University, assigning this role to it aligns compliance obligations with control over the shipment and reflects industry-standard export procedures that protect Company from regulatory exposure. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-15/subtitle-B/chapter-VII/subchapter-C/part-758/section-758.3",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "Requires University to furnish all required export documentation to Company before shipment.",
"sources": "15 CFR 758.1.pdf",
"justification": "Exporters must furnish forwarding agents with all required licenses and supporting documents before shipment under 15 C.F.R. \u00a7 758.1(b)(2), so the Agreement should make document delivery a precondition to allow Company to pause performance until documentation is complete. This safeguard is a standard control in logistics agreements to prevent unlawful exports of sensitive or restricted equipment. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-15/subtitle-B/chapter-VII/subchapter-C/part-758/section-758.1",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "Requires University to identify export-controlled technical data before disclosure to Company.",
"sources": "15 CFR 734.15.pdf, 15 CFR 772.1.pdf",
"justification": "Under 15 C.F.R. \u00a7 734.15, a 'release' of controlled technology includes allowing visual inspection of equipment, oral exchanges of technical information, or the application of technical knowledge abroad, and 15 C.F.R. \u00a7 772.1 defines 'technology' as information necessary for the design, development, production, manufacture, or use of controlled items. Requiring University to identify any export-controlled data before disclosure ensures Company doesn't access restricted information without authorization and keeps the Agreement consistent with the federal framework governing controlled technology. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-15/subtitle-B/chapter-VII/subchapter-C/part-734/section-734.15 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-15/subtitle-B/chapter-VII/subchapter-C/part-772",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "Requires University, as shipper, to certify compliance with dangerous-goods regulations for the Prototype.",
"sources": "49 CFR 172.204.pdf, 49 CFR 173.185.pdf",
"justification": "The Prototype contains 'energy storage components' which could be lithium batteries and classified as hazardous materials under 49 C.F.R. \u00a7\u00a7 172.204 and 173.185, so making University (which has full knowledge of the Prototype's contents) responsible for a hazardous materials declaration is consistent with standard export-packing practice and avoids misdeclaration penalties. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-I/subchapter-C/part-172/subpart-C/section-172.204 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-I/subchapter-C/part-173/subpart-E/section-173.185",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "Requires the Crate to comply with ISPM-15 wood-packaging standards.",
"sources": "7 CFR 319.40-3.pdf",
"justification": "Wood packaging used for international transport must be heat-treated and marked to meet ISPM-15 standards under 7 C.F.R. \u00a7 319.40-3(b), so the Agreement must require that Company comply with ISPM-15 to ensure that the Crate will pass customs inspection and to prevent rejection or destruction at the destination port. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-7/subtitle-B/chapter-III/part-319/subpart-I/section-319.40-3",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "States that Company provides packaging services only.",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "Limiting Company's role to packaging services confines its legal responsibilities to physical packing and excludes freight forwarding or export functions, which prevents Company from being treated as a regulated carrier or exporter and is consistent with industry-standard allocation of responsibilities in logistics service contracts.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "States that Company is liable for damage to the Prototype only to the extent caused by Company's negligence.",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "A negligence-based standard of care ties liability to Company's own workmanship rather than to unknown defects or the actions of third parties, reflecting standard bailment principles and providing balanced risk allocation for high-value shipments.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 9": {
"description": "Requires University to provide Company with written notice of a claim within a defined period following delivery.",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "Fixed notice periods for claims allow Company to investigate promptly and preserve recovery rights with carriers and insurers, which is consistent with industry-standard shipping and logistics contracts and provides predictability for the fragile, overseas-bound Prototype.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 10": {
"description": "States that University will obtain cargo insurance that includes at least 3 of the following protections: Company named as additional insured; coverage primary and non-contributory; waiver of subrogation in favor of Company; insurer rated A- or better by A.M. Best; or loss payable to University.",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "Cargo insurance terms requiring additional insured status, primary coverage, and waiver of subrogation are standard protections in international logistics and limit an insurer's ability to recover against Company after paying a loss. Including these protections also aligns the risk transfer with ownership of the goods and is consistent with common commercial practice when the customer arranges insurance.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 11": {
"description": "Authorizes Company to suspend performance if shipment would violate applicable trade-compliance laws.",
"sources": "15 CFR 758.1.pdf",
"justification": "Giving Company the right to suspend performance when compliance concerns arise is a standard control in international logistics agreements, as it allows Company to halt work if continuing could breach trade-compliance laws such as export-control or sanctions regulations under 15 C.F.R. \u00a7 758.1(b)(2) and 50 U.S.C. \u00a7 4819(a)(1). Including this protection aligns with the prompt's instruction to shield Company from regulatory exposure while keeping the arrangement enforceable and commercially practical. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-15/subtitle-B/chapter-VII/subchapter-C/part-758/section-758.1 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/4819",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 12": {
"description": "Requires University to reimburse Company, to the extent permitted by law, upon the occurrence of any one of the following: inaccurate or incomplete export information; failure to obtain required export authorizations; or concealed hazards in the Prototype.",
"sources": "Va._Code_2.2-1837.pdf",
"justification": "Virginia public institutions of higher education may enter an indemnification agreement only under the conditions in Va. Code \u00a7 2.2-1837, which require prior review by the Office of the Attorney General, a stated liability cap, and confirmation that state credit is not pledged. Linking reimbursement to specific triggers and limiting it 'to the extent permitted by law' keeps the clause within those statutory limits and follows standard public-sector contracting practice for managing risk. https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title2.2/chapter18/section2.2-1837/",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
}
}
|
documents/1226/15 CFR 734.15.pdf
documents/1226/15 CFR 758.1.pdf
documents/1226/15 CFR 772.1.pdf
documents/1226/15CFR758.3.pdf
documents/1226/49 CFR 172.204.pdf
documents/1226/49 CFR 173.185.pdf
documents/1226/7 CFR 319.40-3.pdf
documents/1226/Va._Code_2.2-1837.pdf
|
1,230
|
Legal
|
Our client, Homes, a large international residential property ownership group, has come to us seeking advice. Homes owns 11 single-family residential properties within the Eagle Trace Homeowners' Association ("the Association"). At the present time, 6 of the homes are occupied by tenants, and the other 5 remain vacant. There is no restriction contained within the Association's Declaration of Restrictive Covenants that prohibits an owner from renting, nor is there any prohibition against ownership by an institution. The Association simultaneously filed 11 lawsuits against Homes, each of them for minor violations of the Association's Declaration of Restrictive Covenants and Rules and Regulations related to landscaping, stains in driveways, and garbage cans left on the curb for longer than 24 hours after garbage collection. The Association is represented by the same attorney in all cases. In each case, the Association sent out the statutorily-required non-compliance and hearing notices, however, they were sent to various corporate offices for Homes parent company, White Glass, LLC, rather than to the address of Homes' registered agent which was listed as the point of contact on the owner information sheet for each property which had been supplied by Homes to the Association at the point of purchase. The notices were instead sent to addresses that match those listed on the rental agreements for each property, copies of which are also on file with the Association.
Each of the 11 complaints was worded the same way and was clearly created from the same base template with simple substitutions for the property addresses and dates. This was apparent because there were errors in several of the complaints where the same property address was used across multiple complaints, as well as instances where the facts were repeated verbatim for multiple properties. In each case, shortly after the complaints were served, the Association served Homes with Requests for Admission (in which there were 10 requests), First Sets of Interrogatories, and Requests for Production. As with the Complaints, it was readily apparent that each of these was created from the same base template, as they were all identical. After the discovery requests were served, Plaintiff's counsel, Steven McShady, contacted our office via email to request an in-person conference with Homes' counsel. We agreed on a date; however, several days before the meeting was set to take place, Mr. McShady called and canceled, stating that he had a conflict. Mr. McShady then sent follow-up letters for each case confirming the cancellation and another letter in each case several days later, requesting a new date. In the interim, one of the paralegals from our firm attempted to contact Mr. McShady's office several times by email and multiple times by phone to reschedule, but was told each time that "there were no times available." One of the senior associates for our firm, Vicky Virtue, then reached out to Mr. McShady directly via phone and email, again receiving no response. Less than 2 weeks after the first set of discovery requests were received, the Association filed a Second Request for Admissions (in which there were again 10 requests), a Second Set of Interrogatories, and a Request for Production in each case. Less than one week later, a third round of discovery requests was filed by the Association. Like the first discovery requests, each of the requests was duplicative and clearly created from a template.
Homes has now decided to sell two of the properties governed by the Association. To avoid having to disclose the pending litigation to prospective buyers, Homes has directed us to negotiate a global settlement with the Association in exchange for a dismissal of all pending actions. Ms. Virtue reached out to Mr. McShady to request a global settlement figure. In response, Mr. McShady supplied copies of his timesheets for each file, but has refused to provide a copy of his retainer with the Association, citing attorney/client privilege. A review of the timesheets makes it clear that 1) Mr. McShady billed each file separately for the same calls and emails, 2) Mr. McShady billed the time he spent reviewing scheduling emails at his hourly lawyer rate, 3) Mr. McShady billed each file the same hourly amount for each complaint and discovery request, 4) Mr. McShady billed a minimum of .3 hours on every entry, even those which reflected an email exchange of a single sentence, and 5) Mr. McShady billed more time for phone calls during which he spoke to Ms. Virtue than she did.
Ms. Virtue has finally secured a meeting time with Mr. McShady to discuss the settlement. In anticipation of the settlement conference, she requires a thorough understanding of Florida law regarding whether the Association is entitled to recover all of Mr. McShady's attorney's fees, whether Mr. McShady has committed any ethical violations in his handling of this matter under the Florida Bar Rules, and, if so, whether any such violation can or should be directly addressed by Ms. Virtue either during or after the settlement conference. Draft a memo discussing these issues. Please use the attached documents to carry out your analysis.
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "Identifies that the Association failed to send the violation notices to the owner's designated address as required by law.",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "Florida Statute 720.305 outlines the procedure an Association must follow when dealing with a covenant violation like those described in the prompt. Section 720.305(2)(b) states, in relevant part: A fine or suspension levied by the board of administration may not be imposed unless the board first provides at least 14 days' written notice of the parcel owner's right to a hearing to the parcel owner at his or her DESIGNATED mailing or e-mail address in the association's official records and, if applicable, to any occupant, licensee, or invitee of the parcel owner, sought to be fined or suspended. https://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0720/Sections/0720.305.html The prompt in the present case doesn't actually state that the Association was attempting to levy a fine or suspend any access rights. Nor does it suggest that any hearing was held. Instead, they moved right to litigation on a covenant enforcement suit. Once litigation was initiated, notice was governed by the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and \u00a748.062, Fla. Stat., which require service of process on the corporation's registered agent. Because the Association served notices and filings to tenant and corporate addresses instead of Homes' designated registered agent, the litigation notice was procedurally defective and not compliant with Florida law.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "Identifies that the Association failed to make a demand for pre-suit mediation as required by law.",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "Florida Statute 720.311(2)(a) states, in relevant part, Disputes between an association and a parcel owner regarding use of or changes to the parcel or the common areas and other covenant enforcement disputes ... shall be the subject of a demand for presuit mediation served by an aggrieved party before the dispute is filed in court. https://www.flsenate.gov/laws/statutes/2024/720.311 Here, the Association jumped the gun by filing a civil action instead of exhausting all available remedies.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "Identifies that the Association is precluded from recovering its attorney's fees related to subsequent litigation.",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "Florida Statute 720.311(2)(b) precludes parties who fail to mediate disputes related to restrictive covenant enforcement prior to litigating from recovering attorney's fees related to the subsequent litigation, even if they are ultimately the prevailing party. 'Additionally, notwithstanding the provisions of any other law or document, persons who fail or refuse to participate in the entire mediation process may not recover attorney's fees and costs in subsequent litigation relating to the dispute.' https://www.flsenate.gov/laws/statutes/2024/720.311 In this case, the Association filed 11 lawsuits against Homes without completing the statutorily-required pre-suit mediation. Because the Association bypassed mediation entirely, it is barred from recovering any attorney's fees associated with these covenant enforcement actions, regardless of the outcome in the litigation. This statutory requirement is independent of the merits of the case and directly impacts the Association's entitlement to fees.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "Identifies that the Association's attorney improperly billed his time by billing multiple times for a single piece of created work.",
"sources": "Machado v. Da Vittorio, LLC, No. 1_2009cv23069 - Document 74 (S.D. Fla. 2010) __ Justia.pdf",
"justification": "Attorney's fees arising from hours that are excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary should be excluded from an award of attorney's fees, either by the applicant or the court. See Machado v. Da Vittorio, LLC, (S.D. Fla. 2010) https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/florida/flsdce/1:2009cv23069/344762/74/ In the present case it is clear that McShady was double billing against each of the files because both the complaints and the discovery requests were templates.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "Identifies that the Association's attorney improperly billed his time by billing at an attorney's rate for clerical work.",
"sources": "Machado v. Da Vittorio, LLC, No. 1_2009cv23069 - Document 74 (S.D. Fla. 2010) __ Justia.pdf",
"justification": "Attorney's fees arising from hours that are excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary should be excluded from an award of attorney's fees, either by the applicant or the court. See Machado v. Da Vittorio, LLC, (S.D. Fla. 2010) https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/florida/flsdce/1:2009cv23069/344762/74/ 'Work performed 'which can often be accomplished by non-lawyers but which a lawyer may do because he has no other help available' is not compensable at a lawyer's rate solely 'because a lawyer does it.' Johnson v. Ga. Case No. 09-23069-CIV-ALTONAGA/Brown' Id. at 5. 'The focus on the inquiry is . . . whether the work is traditionally performed by attorneys.' Williams v. R.W. Cannon, Inc., 657 F. Supp. 2d 1302, 1311 (S.D. Fla.2009). Clerical work, such as the compilation of facts and statistics, coordinating schedules, basic communications, procedural matters, and housekeeping matters is usually performed by legal assistants, not lawyers. Id. at 6. In the present case it is clear that McShady would not be entitled to his legal hourly rate for work done related to scheduling and other administrative/clerical tasks.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "Identifies that the Association's attorney improperly billed his time by billing amounts which do not reflect the actual amount of time spent on the work.",
"sources": "Machado v. Da Vittorio, LLC, No. 1_2009cv23069 - Document 74 (S.D. Fla. 2010) __ Justia.pdf",
"justification": "Attorney's fees arising from hours that are excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary should be excluded from an award of attorney's fees, either by the applicant or the court. See Machado v. Da Vittorio, LLC, (S.D. Fla. 2010) https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/florida/flsdce/1:2009cv23069/344762/74/ In the present case it is clear that McShady was padding his billing, both by only billing at .3 as the smallest increment of time and because the time entries do not match those of the person with whom he was speaking on a phone call. See Machado, pg. 8.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "Identifies that the Association's retainer agreement is not privileged.",
"sources": "COFFEY GARCIA v. SOUTH MIAMI HOSPITAL INC (2016) _ FindLaw.pdf, FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-60-33-2.pdf",
"justification": "'Courts have consistently held that the general subject matters of clients' representations are not privileged. Nor does the general purpose of a client's representation necessarily divulge a confidential professional communication, and therefore that data is not generally privileged.' COFFEY GARCIA v. SOUTH MIAMI HOSPITAL INC (2016) The distinction between what is privileged and what is confidential with regard to attorneys and their clients comes down to which sets of rules we are applying, the rules of evidence or the rules of ethics. Attorney client privilege is governed by the former and confidentiality by the latter. In general, a retainer agreement is not privileged because it is outlining the nature of the work to be performed on behalf of the client, rather than the divulging the work itself. An attorney can therefore be compelled to testify about generalities contained within the retainer agreement even those would otherwise be confidential under ethics rules.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "States that raising ethical concerns regarding opposing counsel's behavior may violate Rules Regulating the Florida Bar 4.3(4)(h).",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "Section 4.3(4)(h) of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar specifically states a lawyer must not: '(h) present, participate in presenting, or threaten to present disciplinary charges under these rules solely to obtain an advantage in a civil matter. ' It is a best practice to avoid even the inference that a threat is being made by avoiding specifically mentioning ethics at all.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
}
}
|
documents/1230/COFFEY GARCIA v. SOUTH MIAMI HOSPITAL INC (2016) _ FindLaw.pdf
documents/1230/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-60-33-2.pdf
documents/1230/Machado v. Da Vittorio, LLC, No. 1_2009cv23069 - Document 74 (S.D. Fla. 2010) __ Justia.pdf
|
1,246
|
Legal
|
Erika lives with her roommate and their two dogs in a condo next to a community park owned by the local parks district in a suburb in Southern California. The park has tennis courts, a basketball court, picnic tables, and a large grassy area informally known as the “dog meadow.” Although numerous posted signs state that dogs must remain leashed, the rule is rarely enforced, and the community has long treated the meadow as an off-leash area.
For years, Erika and several neighbors have met at the meadow after work to let their dogs run and to enjoy “happy hour,” bringing food and drinks to share. At one point, the group informally collected small donations to cover snacks, though no one considered it a business. After a neighbor joked that they should have a real bar, Erika found an old ice cream cart online, painted “Erika’s Place” on it, and stocked it with beer and wine she purchased at a local store. She began bringing it to the park on Fridays, offering drinks to her usual group of friends and asking for small “tips” to cover costs.
Word spread, and soon unfamiliar park-goers began approaching the cart. Some parents at the nearby playground complained to the city about off-leash dogs and “a woman selling alcohol to strangers in the park.” An undercover officer from the city police’s community enforcement unit arrived one Friday afternoon. He chatted with Erika, asked if she was “selling,” and offered her $20 for a beer. Erika initially said, “I don’t sell them, I just accept donations,” but he insisted, and then said, "How about $50?" Erika took the money. The officer cited her for violating the city’s open container ordinance, unlicensed sale of alcohol, and operation of an unpermitted business on public land. He also cited her and several dog owners for violating the leash law.
Erika argues that she was entrapped, that she was merely engaging in social hospitality among friends, and that the park’s “accepted practice” of off-leash play amounts to implied consent by the city. She also claims selective enforcement because the police ignored a nearby yoga group that routinely brings wine to evening classes at the same park.
Erika wants to challenge the charges - what are her available defenses, and what is the likelihood of success for each? Please refer to the included files to draft the response.
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "Identifies that Erika can raise the defense of entrapment against the charge of unlawful sale of alcohol.",
"sources": "BUS_23300; BUS_23025; BUS_25607; People v. Barraza",
"justification": "Under California's Business Code \u00a723300, 'No person shall exercise the privilege or perform any act which a licensee may exercise or perform under the authority of a license unless the person is authorized to do so by a license issued pursuant to this division,' where 'sale' is defined as '...any transaction whereby, for any consideration, title to alcoholic beverages is transferred from one person to another, and includes the delivery of alcoholic beverages pursuant to an order placed for the purchase of such beverages and soliciting or receiving an order for such beverages.' (Cal. Bus. Code \u00a723025) Here, by accepting $50 for a beer, Erika engaged in a transaction for value. Her tips might also be construed as a sale if they were consistently part of an exchange for alcohol. Since 'Erika's Place' was unlicensed, Erika can be charged with violation of \u00a723300 for the unlicensed sale of alcohol \u2014 a misdemeanor. [See \u00a725607(a): 'Except as provided in subdivisions (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f), it is unlawful for any person or licensee to have upon any premises for which a license has been issued any alcoholic beverages other than the alcoholic beverage that the licensee is authorized to sell at the premises under their license. It shall be presumed that all alcoholic beverages found or located upon premises for which licenses have been issued belong to the person or persons to whom the licenses were issued. Any person who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor.'] Erika can argue that she did not sell alcohol unlawfully, because the only time she ever exchanged beer for money was when the plainclothes officer entrapped her into doing so, which should be inadmissible as evidence. The city's charge hinges on the evidence of her exchange with the plainclothes officer, whereby she traded a beer for $50, but Erika can argue that this evidence should be disregarded due to police entrapment. California defines entrapment when 'conduct of the law enforcement agent is likely to induce a normally law-abiding person to commit the offense.' [People v. Barraza (1979) 23 Cal.3d 690] Erika must persuade the court that she - normally a law-abiding citizen - would not typically have engaged in the unlawful sale of alcohol, were it not for the officer's inducement.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "Concludes that the entrapment defense against the unlawful sale of alcohol will be successful.",
"sources": "People v. Barraza",
"justification": "California defines entrapment when 'conduct of the law enforcement agent is likely to induce a normally law-abiding person to commit the offense.' [People v. Barraza (1979) 23 Cal.3d 690] There are two distinguishable factors to consider: first, whether the 'person would normally resist the temptation to commit a crime presented by the simple opportunity to act unlawfully;' and second, whether the officer acted in such a way as to 'make commission of the crime unusually attractive to a normally law-abiding person.' (Id.) Here, the officer initially offered Erika $20 for a beer and she declined; this speaks to the first part of the test, where Erika did indeed resist the temptation to commit the crime. In spite of Erika's refusal, the officer then offered $50, which can be viewed as an 'unusually attractive' enticement. The court in People v Barraza gives examples of types of affirmative police conduct that would make an offer unusually attractive, including 'an offer of exorbitant consideration.' (Id.) Fifty dollars for a beer is by most accounts, at least ten times its value, and qualifies as an offer of exorbitant consideration. Erika's defense of entrapment is therefore likely to succeed against the unlawful sale of alcohol charge.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1
]
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "Identifies that Erika can raise the defense of entrapment against the charge of operating an unpermitted business.",
"sources": "GOV_51039; People v. Barraza",
"justification": "California's Government Code lays out regulations by which a local authority can regulate sidewalk vendors; Violations of these rules are punishable under \u00a751039: 'If a local authority requires a sidewalk vendor to obtain a sidewalk vending permit from the local authority, vending without a sidewalk vending permit may be punishable by the following... [Cal. Gov. Code \u00a751039(a)(3)(A)]', which details a list of administrative fees for subsequent offenses. 'Erika's Place' is a cart with signage, alcohol service, and a tip jar - by all appearances it looks like an enterprise with commercial activity. Since Erika does not have a permit, she can be charged with a violation of any local ordinances drawn under \u00a751039 for unpermitted business operation on public lands, and faces potential citations and fees. Erika can argue that she did not violate permitting regulations, because 'Erika's Place' is not a business. Part of the city's charge hinges on the evidence of her exchange with the plainclothes officer, whereby she traded a beer for $50, but Erika can argue that this evidence should be disregarded due to police entrapment. California defines entrapment as when 'conduct of the law enforcement agent is likely to induce a normally law-abiding person to commit the offense.' [People v. Barraza (1979) 23 Cal.3d 690] Erika must persuade the court that she - normally a law-abiding citizen - would not typically have engaged in operating an unpermitted business, were it not for the officer's inducement.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "Identifies that Erika did not intend to make a profit from Erika's Place.",
"sources": "GOV_51039",
"justification": "California's Government Code lays out regulations by which a local authority can regulate sidewalk vendors; Violations of these rules are punishable under \u00a751039: 'If a local authority requires a sidewalk vendor to obtain a sidewalk vending permit from the local authority, vending without a sidewalk vending permit may be punishable by the following... [Cal. Gov. Code \u00a751039(a)(3)(A)]', which details a list of administrative fees for subsequent offenses. In relation to the unpermitted business operation charge, Erika can argue that Erika's Place cannot be categorized as a business because she did not intend to engage in commerce or make a profit; she was acting as a social host, providing alcohol for friends at a private social gathering, rather than conducting a business operation While this argument is futile against the unlicensed sale of alcohol (since \u00a7 23300 imposes strict liablity), it may hold some weight against statutes that require intent to profit for commercial purpose. She can point to sections of the code that define business with the intent to profit (See Cal. Bus. Code \u00a7 82005: ' 'Business entity' means any organization or enterprise operated for profit, including but not limited to a proprietorship, partnership, firm, business trust, joint venture, syndicate, corporation or association'); or to the tax code, where ''Doing business' means actively engaging in any transaction for the purpose of financial or pecuniary gain or profit.' [Cal. Rev. Code \u00a7 23101(a)]",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "Concludes that Erika will likely be found guilty of operating an unpermitted business.",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "Even if Erika succeeds in proving entrapment regarding the actual sale of beer to the officer, this is only one piece of evidence in a larger picture. The city can point to many other business-like features of 'Erika's Place,' including the rented cart, the frequency and duration of operation (seemingly often and routinely over a long period of time, rather than just once or twice), the signage and name, the stocked inventory (beyond personal use), and the tip jar. They might even consider the fact that news of the beer cart spread to other sections of the park to equate to word-of-mouth advertising. The bulk of the evidence is in favor of Erika's Place being classified as a business, and an unauthorized one at that. Erika's argument that she did not intend to operate a business may be somewhat persuasive to the court. Her argument relies on semantic definitions that a business is related to profit, as distinguished from her intent - which is to serve her friends, not to turn a profit. Erika's lack of criminal intent is not a full defense to the charge of unpermitted business operation, as intent is not an explicit factor of the statute, but it may be useful for mitigation or dismissal in the interests of justice.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
3,
4
]
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "Identifies that Erika can argue the city violated the Equal Protection Clause by selectively enforcing the rules relating to possession of alcohol in public spaces.",
"sources": "BUS_25620",
"justification": "California Business Code \u00a7 25620 prohibits possession or consumption of open alcoholic beverages in public parks or other public spaces without a city permit. Erika and her friends openly consumed alcohol in the public park without a permit, so she may also be charged with an 'infraction' under the city code. ('Any person possessing any can, bottle, or other receptacle containing any alcoholic beverage that has been opened, or a seal broken, or the contents of which have been partially removed, in any city, county, or city and county owned park or other city, county, or city and county owned public place, or any recreation and park district, or any regional park or open-space district shall be guilty of an infraction if the city, county, or city and county has enacted an ordinance that prohibits the possession of those containers in those areas or the consumption of alcoholic beverages in those areas.' [Cal. Bus. Code \u00a7 25620(a)]) Erika can raise a constitutional defense, arguing that the city violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment by selectively enforcing the rules related to public possession or consumption of open alcohol. The facts state that the yoga group routinely brought wine to evening classes at the park; Erika can argue that the yogis were similarly situated (and not prosecuted), and that the decision to prosecute her was based on an arbitrary classification (as a dog owner). This is a weak argument, as there is nothing in the facts to suggest that the officer here chose to target Erika with a discriminatory motive, and her distinction from the yogis is not a constitutionally-protected class (e.g., gender, viewpoint, ethnicity, etc.)",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "Identifies that Erika can raise equitable estoppel against the leash law violation.",
"sources": "PEN_597.1; City of Long Beach v Mansell",
"justification": "There is no uniform leash law in California, as the state defers to local municipalities to establish their own regulations. For example, California's Penal Code authorizes the seizure and citation of owners whose animals are not restrained as required by local ordinance. 'Every owner, driver, or keeper of any animal who permits the animal to be in any building, enclosure, lane, street, square, or lot of any city, county, city and county, or judicial district without proper care and attention is guilty of a misdemeanor.' [Cal. Pen. Code \u00a7 597.1(a)(1)] The facts indicate that Erika's city has clearly established laws in place, as shown by the various signs around the community park that require dogs to be leashed. Erika can be charged with a violation per the details of the local ordinance, though the specifics of this ordinance are not made clear by the prompt. Erika can argue that the city, through long-standing non-enforcement of the leash laws, created a de facto public custom amounting to implied consent. However, municipal nonfeasance does not equate to an authorization of unlawful conduct, and it does not estop future government enforcement. [See City of Long Beach v. Mansell (1970) 3 Cal.3d 493: 'It is settled that '[t]he doctrine of equitable estoppel may be applied against the government where justice and right require it. (See generally 28 Am. Jur.2d, Estoppel and Waiver, \u00a7\u00a7 122-133, pp. 782-802; 31 C.J.S., Estoppel, \u00a7\u00a7 138-147, pp. 675-733.) Correlative to this general rule, however, is the well-established proposition that an estoppel will not be applied against the government if to do so would effectively nullify 'a strong rule of policy, adopted for the benefit of the public'] Here, leash laws are in place to protect the public, and so the court would not be likely to impose the doctrine of estoppel against the city. Estoppel is therefore not a viable full legal defense, but it might be persuasive in seeking dismissal or diversion.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
}
}
|
documents/1246/BPC_23025.pdf
documents/1246/BPC_25607.pdf
documents/1246/BPC_25620.pdf
documents/1246/BUS_23300_23301.pdf
documents/1246/City of Long Beach v. Mansell.pdf
documents/1246/GOV_51039.pdf
documents/1246/PEN_597.1.pdf
documents/1246/People v. Barraza.pdf
|
1,318
|
Legal
|
Jenn Castro has been one of the firm’s clients for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits since September 2023 when she had a car accident. The Social Security Administration (SSA) denied her Request for Reconsideration in February 2025, and Ms. Castro appealed that decision. She requested a hearing before the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), which is scheduled to take place in 3 weeks. Until this morning, the firm last heard from Ms. Castro in February 2025. She sent an email to the firm this morning with updates regarding her case.
One of the attachments to Ms. Castro’s email was a new medical opinion statement from her neurosurgeon, Jacob Star. The other attachment includes the 2024 and 2025 updates to Ms. Castro’s work and earnings history. One of the firm’s paralegals added this new evidence to Ms. Castro’s case file.
Utilizing “Jenn Castro Case File.pdf” and applicable law, draft an internal memorandum that determines whether Ms. Castro is entitled to SSI benefits.
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "Determines that Ms. Castro has engaged in substantial gainful activity since April 2025.",
"sources": "Jen Castro Case File.pdf",
"justification": "The first step of the five-step sequential evaluation process is described in Program Operations Manual System (POMS) DI 22001.001. The question at step one is whether 'the claimant [is] engaging in SGA\u2026If yes, the claimant is not disabled\u2026If no, the sequential evaluation continues.' https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0422001001 POMS DI 25501.390 states that 'work is 'substantial' if it involves engaging in significant physical or mental activities, or a combination of both. Work is gainful if it is: \u2022 performed for pay or profit; or \u2022 the kind of work usually done for pay or profit, whether or not a profit is realized. Work performed on a part-time basis may be SGA. Generally, we use earnings guidelines to decide if work is SGA.' https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.NSF/lnx/0425501390 The source 'Jen Castro Case File.pdf' confirms that she has earned $10,000 per month since April 2025, which is more than the 2025 SGA monthly amount of $1,620. https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/sga.html Therefore, Ms. Castro has been engaging in SGA since April 2025. As such, Ms. Castro is not entitled to ongoing Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "Determines that Ms. Castro did not engage in substantial gainful activity from September 2023 through March 2025.",
"sources": "Jen Castro Case File.pdf",
"justification": "The source 'Jen Castro Case File.pdf' confirms that she did not have any earnings for a period of 19 months from September 2023 through March 2025. The SSA can consider the 19 month period from September 2023 through March 2025 as Ms. Castro did not engage in SGA during this period. Therefore, the answer to step one is no for the closed period from September 2023 through March 2025. The sequential evaluation must continue.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "Determines that Ms. Castro's medically determinable impairments were severe from September 2023 through March 2025.",
"sources": "Jen Castro Case File.pdf",
"justification": "The second step of the five-step sequential evaluation process is described in POMS DI 22001.001. The question at step two is whether the claimant has a 'medically determinable impairment (MDI) (or combination of MDIs) that is both severe and meets the duration requirement\u2026If no, the claimant is not disabled\u2026If yes, sequential evaluation continues.' https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0422001001 POMS DI 24505.001 provides guidance on the definition of a not severe impairment. 'At the second step of sequential evaluation, it must be determined whether medical evidence establishes a physical or mental impairment or combination of impairments of sufficient severity as to be the basis of a finding of inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity (SGA). When medical evidence establishes only a slight abnormality or a combination of slight abnormalities which would have no more than a minimum effect on an individual's ability to work, such impairment(s) will be found 'not severe,' and a determination of 'not disabled' will be made without consideration of vocational factors. In such an instance, the person's impairment(s) would have no more than a minimal effect on his or her physical or mental ability(ies) to perform basic work activities, so a determination of 'not disabled' would result even if the individual's age, education, or work experience were specifically considered.' https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0424505001 The source 'Jen Castro Case File.pdf' includes two medical opinion statements written by Ms. Castro's treating physician Dr. Jacob Star. The oldest medical opinion statement describes Ms. Castro's health from September 2023 until March 2025. The most recent medical opinion statement describes Ms. Castro's health from April 2025 until October 2025. Ms. Castro's claim for SSI benefits must be focused on the period of time from September 2023 until March 2025 due to her work activity. Therefore, for step two, only the first medical opinion statement is relevant. According to the oldest medical opinion statement, Ms. Castro has been diagnosed with an intracerebral hemorrhage and a traumatic brain injury. Dr. Star specifically states that 'she is seriously limited in her ability to independently initiate, sustain, and complete work-related physical activities.' He also states that 'Due to her brain injury, she has serious limitations when understanding, remembering, and applying information. She would not be able to function independently, appropriately, and effectively on a sustained basis, and complete work-related mental activities.' Based on these statements, Ms. Castro's impairments must be classified as 'severe.'",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "Determines that Ms. Castro's medically determinable impairments met the duration requirement from September 2023 through March 2025.",
"sources": "Jen Castro Case File.pdf",
"justification": "As for duration, POMS DI 25505.030 states that 'in most cases in which evidence supports a finding of disability, it will be clear whether the MDI(s) is expected to result in death or has lasted or is expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months from the onset of disability.' https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0425505030 In the oldest medical opinion statement, Dr. Star confirms that Ms. Castro has suffered from an intracerebral hemorrhage and a traumatic brain injury since September 2023. Ms. Castro's MDIs meet the duration requirement for step 2, as she's suffered for a continuous period of not less than 12 months. Therefore, the answer to step two is yes for the closed period from September 2023 through March 2025. The sequential evaluation must continue.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "Determines that Ms. Castro had an impairment that met Listing 11.18 from September 2023 through March 2025.",
"sources": "Jen Castro Case File.pdf",
"justification": "The third step of the five-step sequential evaluation process is described in POMS DI 22001.001. The question at step three is whether the claimant has 'an impairment(s) that meets a listing, or is medically equal to a listing in appendix 1\u2026If yes, the claimant is disabled\u2026If no, the sequential evaluation continues.' https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0422001001 Based on medical evidence in the source 'Jen Castro Case File.pdf,' the most appropriate listing for Ms. Castro's case is Listing 11.18 \u2013 Traumatic brain injury. This listing can only be met if the claimant has a traumatic brain injury 'characterized by A or B: A. Disorganization of motor function in two extremities (see 11.00D1), resulting in an extreme limitation (see 11.00D2) in the ability to stand up from a seated position, balance while standing or walking, or use the upper extremities, persisting for at least 3 consecutive months after the injury. OR B. Marked limitation (see 11.00G2) in physical functioning (see 11.00G3a), and in one of the following areas of mental functioning, persisting for at least 3 consecutive months after the injury: 1. Understanding, remembering, or applying information (see 11.00G3b(i)); or 2. Interacting with others (see 11.00G3b(ii)); or 3. Concentrating, persisting, or maintaining pace (see 11.00G3b(iii)); or 4. Adapting or managing oneself (see 11.00G3b(iv)). https://www.ssa.gov/disability/professionals/bluebook/1.00-Musculoskeletal-Adult.htm#1_18 In the source 'Jen Castro Case File.pdf,' there is medical evidence that Ms. Castro has a marked limitation in physical functioning with regards to her balancing ability. According to the Bluebook, 'you may have a marked limitation in your physical functioning when your neurological disease process causes persistent or intermittent symptoms that affect your abilities to independently initiate, sustain, and complete work-related activities, such as standing, balancing, walking, using both upper extremities for fine and gross movements, or results in limitations in using one upper and one lower extremity.' https://www.ssa.gov/disability/professionals/bluebook/1.00-Musculoskeletal-Adult.htm#1_18 In the oldest medical opinion statement, Dr. Star states 'Her neurological impairments from her brain injury prevent her from balancing, even when walking and standing on level terrain while using the medically prescribed walker. When it comes to balancing, she is seriously limited in her ability to independently initiate, sustain, and complete work-related physical activities.' Therefore, Ms. Castro's balancing ability meets the Bluebook's description of a marked limitation in physical functioning. In the source 'Jen Castro Case File.pdf,' there is also medical evidence that Ms. Castro has a marked limitation in mental functioning. Specifically, she has a marked limitation in the area of understanding, remembering, or applying information. According to the Bluebook, 'You need not be totally precluded from performing an activity to have a marked limitation (in your mental functioning), as long as the degree of limitation seriously limits your ability to function independently, appropriately, and effectively on a sustained basis, and complete work-related mental activities.' https://www.ssa.gov/disability/professionals/bluebook/1.00-Musculoskeletal-Adult.htm#1_18 In the oldest medical opinion statement, Dr. Star states 'Due to her brain injury, she has serious limitations when understanding, remembering, and applying information. She would not be able to function independently, appropriately, and effectively on a sustained basis, and complete work-related mental activities.' Therefore, Ms. Castro's serious limitations understanding, remembering, and applying information constitute a marked limitation in mental functioning, as described in the Bluebook. Finally, the source 'Jen Castro Case File.pdf' confirms that Ms. Castro's marked limitations in physical and mental functioning persisted for at least 3 months. According to the oldest medical opinion statement, Ms. Castro's limitations began in September 2023 and were expected to last at least one year. According to the most recent medical opinion statement, Ms. Castro's limitations ended in April 2025, as by then, Ms. Castro no longer had any issues balancing, understanding, remembering, or applying information. Therefore, the answer to step three is yes for the closed period from September 2023 through March 2025. As such, the SSA will find Ms. Castro disabled for the closed period from September 2023 through March 2025.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "Determines that Ms. Castro is entitled to a closed period of Supplemental Security Income benefits from September 2023 through March 2025.",
"sources": "Jen Castro Case File.pdf",
"justification": "Based on the evidence in the source 'Jen Castro Case File.pdf,' the SSA will find that Ms. Castro is entitled to SSI benefits during a closed period from September 2023 through March 2025. When the SSA considers this 19 month period, it will find that she met the requirements of disability at the third step of the five-step sequential evaluation process: Step 1: The SSA will find that she had no earnings during the closed period. Step 2: The SSA will find that she had severe medically determinable impairments (an intracerebral hemorrhage and a traumatic brain injury) that lasted not less than 12 months. Step 3. The SSA will find that her traumatic brain injury meets Listing 11.18. The firm should speak with Ms. Castro via telephone to amend her pending SSI claim to request a closed period of disability from September 2023 through March 2025. This action will be viewed favorably by the Administrative Law Judge and may even lead to a favorable decision without a hearing.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
2,
3,
4,
5,
1
]
}
}
|
documents/1318/Jenn Castro Case File.pdf
|
1,319
|
Legal
|
The client is a Virginia-based sanitation services contractor ("Company") that provides portable restroom and hand-wash station rentals for outdoor events, including county fairs, athletic tournaments, and construction sites. Company has been selected as the exclusive sanitation vendor for a five-day outdoor music festival ("Festival") to be held on county-leased farmland in Virginia that will host approximately 25,000 attendees per day ("Venue").
Under the proposed form sent to Company by the event promoter ("Promoter"), Company will deliver, service, and remove all portable units, including ADA-accessible restrooms, luxury restroom trailers, and hand-wash stations (collectively "Units"), in accordance with the Festival's layout plan ("Plan"). Promoter will pay a flat service fee and reimburse certain variable expenses such as pump-out trips, graywater disposal, and overnight labor. However, Promoter's proposed form contract doesn't allocate risk for spills, vandalism, or hazardous waste found in Units. Also, it requires Company to provide "continuous service" without defining staffing or access terms, and it includes an indemnity clause that appears to shift all third-party injury and environmental liability to Company. Promoter also insists that all onsite personnel sign its "Volunteer and Contractor Safety Policy," which contains conflicting insurance requirements and waiver language.
Company wants to move forward with the relationship. However, it is concerned about protecting its commercial viability, maintaining compliance with sanitation and environmental regulations, and avoiding liability for conditions or conduct outside its control. To that end, prepare an agreement ("Agreement") that resolves the risks clearly implied by the facts and provides Company with appropriate protection against regulatory, operational, and liability exposure, while ensuring the arrangement remains commercially workable and enforceable under applicable law. Consider the attached document.
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "Requires Promoter to maintain legal authorization to use the Venue for the Festival.",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "The Festival takes place on county-leased farmland, so Promoter must keep whatever permits or permissions the county requires to operate there to ensure that the event stays lawful and prevents Company from performing on an unapproved site. This liability transfer is standard in public-site vendor contracts because it protects Company from compliance issues outside its control.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "States that Company may suspend services for any of at least 2 of the following reasons: Promoter's nonpayment; loss of legal authorization to use the Venue for the Festival; or unsafe site conditions that prevent lawful or safe servicing.",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "Company needs flexibility to pause work when payment stops, access is revoked, or conditions make service unsafe because, without that right, it could be forced to continue operating in violation of safety or health regulations. Including a suspension clause like this is routine in regulated service agreements because it gives the vendor leverage to fix problems before they result in legal or financial exposure.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "States that Promoter is solely responsible for at least 3 of the following site-readiness measures: providing firm pads for Units; clearing truck paths for servicing; maintaining adequate lighting near Units; or managing crowd access in service areas.",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "At a large outdoor event, safe and efficient servicing depends on how well the site is prepared, and only Promoter can manage ground conditions, lighting, and crowd flow. Consequently, assigning this responsibility aligns risk with control and follows common practice in event and construction logistics contracts.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "States that Promoter is solely responsible for at least 3 of the following duties related to non-human waste: remediation; transport; disposal; or reporting.",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "Promoter's draft contract 'doesn't allocate risk for hazardous waste found in Units.' Since Company cannot control what thousands of attendees put into the Units, Promoter should handle the cleanup, disposal, and any required reporting. Incorporating this risk allocation into the Agreement ensures that liability remains with Promoter, who is responsible for managing attendees and security. This approach aligns with the practices of the sanitation industry regarding temporary event agreements, where the site operator\u2014not the vendor\u2014is expected to handle hazardous materials resulting from attendee misuse.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "States that Company's environmental liability is limited to damages resulting from Company's negligence.",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "The prompt notes that the allocation of risk for spills is an issue. Liability should follow control, so if Company causes a spill through its own error, it pays for it. However, Company should not be responsible for contamination caused by others. This limitation is a normal protection in service contracts and ensures the vendor's exposure stays proportionate to its own conduct.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "Requires Promoter to indemnify Company for at least 3 of the following categories of loss, to the extent not caused by Company's negligence: bodily injury; property damage; regulatory penalties; cleanup costs; or third-party claims arising from Promoter's operations.",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "Promoter runs the event and controls the Venue, so it should cover losses that result from its operations or the actions of attendees, and a broad indemnity covering injury, property damage, and compliance costs prevents Company from paying for risks it cannot manage. This structure is the standard way public-event contracts divide liability between organizers and service vendors, and this indemnity shifts risk to the party who best controls it (consistent with Estes Express Lines v. Chopper Express, Inc., 273 Va. 358, 365 to 367 (2007)). https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/59146ee0add7b0493433eac2",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "States that Promoter will fund a refundable security deposit in favor of Company.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Company must commit trucks, staff, and other resources before the Festival begins, and a deposit guarantees payment even if ticket sales or cash flow falter, which could occur if poor weather or other conditions restrict attendance. Deposits are a common financial safeguard in short-term service contracts where the vendor's costs come first and revenue follows later.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "Requires Promoter to pay interest on overdue amounts.",
"sources": "VA \u00a7 6.2-302.pdf",
"justification": "Including an interest clause encourages prompt payment and compensates Company for delays in settlement after the Festival ends. Virginia law expressly allows parties to contract for interest on unpaid amounts, as confirmed in Va. Code \u00a7 6.2-302, so including this term provides both a financial safeguard and a clear legal basis for recovery of late fees in a commercial services agreement. https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title6.2/chapter3/section6.2-302/",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 9": {
"description": "States that the Agreement controls over any Promoter-issued document that conflicts with its terms.",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "The prompt noted that Promoter's 'Volunteer and Contractor Safety Policy' conflicts with the contract's insurance and waiver terms. A supremacy clause fixes this by making the Agreement the final word to ensure that no internal policy can override the negotiated risk allocation (and doing so is standard in vendor agreements for managed venues).",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 10": {
"description": "Prohibits Promoter from requiring Company personnel to sign documents that conflict with the Agreement.",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "Event staff often distribute safety forms or waivers at festival check-ins (and the prompt noted that The prompt noted the Promoter's 'Volunteer and Contractor Safety Policy' conflicts with the contract's insurance and waiver terms) and if Company's crew signs them, those papers could be used to alter or limit the Agreement's protections, so the Agreement should include a clause to prevent that from happening. Doing this will also keep all legal obligations confined to the signed Agreement.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 11": {
"description": "Requires Promoter to maintain comprehensive general liability insurance containing at least 3 of the following: naming Company as an additional insured; providing primary and non-contributory coverage; waiving subrogation against Company; specifying minimum per-occurrence limits consistent with event-industry standards; or specifying aggregate limits consistent with event-industry standards.",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "Festivals carry significant public-liability risk, so Promoter's insurance must respond first to attendee or property claims. Listing Company as an additional insured extends coverage to the vendor, while the primary and non-contributory language prevents insurer disputes, a waiver of subrogation blocks reimbursement claims, and minimum coverage limits ensure adequate protection, which mirror standard drafting in event and facilities management contracts.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 12": {
"description": "States that Virginia law governs the Agreement.",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "Both parties are Virginia-based and the event takes place on county land in Virginia, so it is logical to apply Virginia law, and choosing the law of the place of performance is standard in service contracts because it simplifies enforcement and compliance.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
}
}
|
documents/1319/VA § 6.2-302.pdf
|
1,323
|
Legal
|
On October 20, 2025, in Vista, California, Beatrice Restrepo, aged 21, parked in front of the apartment complex where her girlfriend, Sherranda Ricard, aged 27, was living. Ms. Restrepo and Ms. Ricard had recently had a heated argument during which both parties threatened to break up with the other. Ms. Restrepo knew that Ms. Ricard kept a photo of them on her nightstand. The photo, which Ms. Restrepo had taken using her own polaroid camera, depicted the two of them laughing while Ms. Ricard playfully pushed soft serve ice cream against Ms. Restrepo's cheek. On the back, Ms. Restrepo had written the words "yours forever." Desperate to save their relationship, Ms. Restrepo had written in her journal, "I'm gonna burn that photo and see what S does. Maybe there's some fire left in her heart we'll see."
Ms. Restrepo put a cigarette lighter into her pocket, got out of the car, and walked up to Ms. Ricard's front door. Using the key Ms. Ricard had given her, Ms. Restrepo opened the front door and walked quietly into the bedroom. She grabbed the photograph, lit it on fire, and then walked toward the bathroom to toss the burning photograph into the bathtub, where she hoped Ms. Ricard would later find it. The photograph began burning more quickly than expected, so Ms. Restrepo rushed down the hallway, threw open the bathroom door, and threw the burning photograph into the tub. The burning photograph struck Ms. Ricard, who was bathing with headphones on, briefly against the back of her neck, leaving a very minor burn that required no medical attention and was completely healed within one day. Livid, Ms. Ricard called the police and had Ms. Restrepo arrested. Ms. Ricard told the police she was "done" with Ms. Restrepo and she wanted her punished "to the fullest extent of the law."
The San Diego County District Attorney has received the police report and is currently weighing charges against Ms. Restrepo. The District Attorney prioritizes the express wishes of victims and wants to determine the most serious charge she could bring against Ms. Ricard.
Using the attached document, write a memorandum to the District Attorney advising:
(1) what is the most serious charge she could bring against Ms. Restrepo, including any applicable enhancements or special allegations that could attach to the charge?
(2) how strong is the prosecution's case for the charge (and any applicable enhancements or special allegations) described in (1)?
(3) if convicted of the charge described in (1) (along with any applicable enhancements or special allegations), what is the maximum amount of actual custody time Ms. Restrepo may face?
In the answer to question (3), assume the defendant will be awarded all applicable custody credits.
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "Identifies all of the following as elements of first-degree burglary: (1) entry, (2) of an inhabited dwelling, and (3) with intent to commit a felony.",
"sources": "CA PEN \u00a7 459.pdf",
"justification": "California Code, Penal Code - PEN \u00a7 459: 'Every person who enters any...apartment...with intent to commit ...any felony is guilty of burglary.' https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-459/ California Code, Penal Code - PEN \u00a7 460: '(a) Every burglary of an inhabited dwelling house...or the inhabited portion of any other building, is burglary of the first degree.' https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-460/",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "Identifies that Ms. Restrepo entered the apartment.",
"sources": "CA PEN \u00a7 459.pdf",
"justification": "LAW California Code, Penal Code - PEN \u00a7 459: 'Every person who enters any...apartment...with intent to commit ...any felony is guilty of burglary.' https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-459/ APPLICATION Per the prompt, using the key Ms. Ricard had given her, Ms. Restrepo opened the front door and walked quietly into the bedroom. Thus, Ms. Restrepo entered the apartment.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "Identifies that Ms. Ricard's apartment is an inhabited dwelling.",
"sources": "Prompt.",
"justification": "LAW California Code, Penal Code - PEN \u00a7 460: '(a) Every burglary of an inhabited dwelling house...or the inhabited portion of any other building, is burglary of the first degree.' https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-460/ APPLICATION Per the prompt, Ms. Ricard was 'living' at the apartment complex. The facts that Ms. Ricard (a) provided Ms. Restrepo with a working key, and (b) was bathing in the apartment during the burglary, both bolster the argument that the apartment was inhabited by Ms. Ricard at the time of the burglary. Thus, Ms. Ricard's apartment is an inhabited dwelling",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "Identifies that Ms. Restrepo entered the apartment with the intent to commit arson of property.",
"sources": "CA PEN \u00a7 459.pdf",
"justification": "LAW California Code, Penal Code - PEN \u00a7 459: 'Every person who enters any...apartment...with intent to commit ...any felony is guilty of burglary.' https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-459/ California Code, Penal Code - PEN \u00a7 451: 'A person is guilty of arson when he or she willfully and maliciously sets fire to or burns or causes to be burned or who aids, counsels, or procures the burning of, any structure, forest land, or property. ... (d) Arson of property is a felony punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months, two, or three years. For purposes of this paragraph, arson of property does not include one burning or causing to be burned his or her own personal property unless there is an intent to defraud or there is injury to another person or another person's structure, forest land, or property.' https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-451/ APPLICATION Per the prompt, Ms. Ricard's intent was to enter the apartment and burn a photograph therein. The evidence includes: - Ms. Restrepo's journal entry where she stated her plan to burn the photo - Ms. Restrepo putting a cigarette lighter into her pocket prior to walking into the apartment - Ms. Restrepo proceeding directly to the bedroom where she lit the photograph on fire Together, this evidence establishes that Ms. Restrepo entered the apartment with the intent to commit arson of property. It's incorrect to state that she entered with intent to commit arson causing great bodily injury (PC 451(a)) or arson of an inhabited dwelling (PC 451(b)). The evidence indicates her intent was to merely burn the photograph; she did not intend to injure Ms. Ricard, nor did she intend to burn the apartment itself.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "Identifies that arson of property is a felony.",
"sources": "CA PEN \u00a7 459.pdf",
"justification": "LAW California Code, Penal Code - PEN \u00a7 459: 'Every person who enters any...apartment...with intent to commit ...any felony is guilty of burglary.' https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-459/ California Code, Penal Code - PEN \u00a7 451: 'A person is guilty of arson when he or she willfully and maliciously sets fire to or burns or causes to be burned or who aids, counsels, or procures the burning of, any structure, forest land, or property. ... (d) ***Arson of property is a felony*** punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months, two, or three years. For purposes of this paragraph, arson of property does not include one burning or causing to be burned his or her own personal property unless there is an intent to defraud or there is injury to another person or another person's structure, forest land, or property.' *** added for emphasis https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-451/ APPLICATION As established in C4/29535, Ms. Restrepo entered the apartment with the intent to commit arson of property. Arson of property 'is a felony.' (See PC 451(d).)",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "Concludes that the prosecution's case for first-degree burglary is very strong.",
"sources": "Prompt.",
"justification": "ISSUE The prompt states: '(1) what is the most serious charge she could bring against Ms. Restrepo, including any applicable enhancements or special allegations that could attach to the charge?' LAW As established in C1/29532, the elements of first-degree burglary are: (1) entry (2) of an inhabited dwelling (3) with intent to commit a felony. APPLICATION As established in C2/29533, Ms. Restrepo entered the apartment. As established in C3/29534, Ms. Ricard's apartment is an inhabited dwelling. As established in C4/29535, Ms. Restrepo entered the apartment with the intent to commit arson of property. As established in C5/29905, arson of property is a felony. CONCLUSION Thus, the prosecution can prove Ms. Restrepo guilty of first-degree burglary.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
2,
3,
4,
1,
5
]
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "States that a special allegation under PC 667.5(c)(21) applies when another person, other than an accomplice, was present in the residence during the commission of a first-degree burglary.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "California Code, Penal Code - PEN \u00a7 667.5: '(c) For the purpose of this section, 'violent felony' means any of the following: ... (21) Any burglary of the first degree, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 460, wherein it is charged and proved that another person, other than an accomplice, was present in the residence during the commission of the burglary.' https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-667-5/",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "Concludes that the prosecution's case for a special allegation against Ms. Restrepo under PC 667.5(c)(21) is very strong.",
"sources": "Prompt.",
"justification": "ISSUE The prompt states: '(1) what is the most serious charge she could bring against Ms. Restrepo, including any applicable enhancements or special allegations that could attach to the charge?' LAW As established in C7/29537, a special allegation under PC 667.5(c)(21) applies when another person, other than an accomplice, was present in the residence during the commission of a first-degree burglary. APPLICATION Per the prompt, Ms. Ricard was bathing in the apartment during the commission of the burglary. As established in C6/29536, Ms. Restrepo's burglary of Ms. Ricard's apartment was a burglary of the first degree. CONCLUSION Because a non-accomplice (Ms. Ricard) was present during the commission of a first-degree burglary, the prosecution can prove a special allegation against Ms. Restrepo under PC 667.5(c)(21).",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
6,
7
]
},
"criterion 9": {
"description": "Identifies that first-degree burglary carries a maximum of six years in custody.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "California Code, Penal Code - PEN \u00a7 461: 'Burglary is punishable as follows: (a) Burglary in the first degree: by imprisonment in the state prison for two, four, or six years.' https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-461/",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 10": {
"description": "Identifies that first-degree burglary is a strike under California's 3 Strikes Law.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "California's 3 Strikes Law is codified redundantly in PC 667 and PC 1170.12. California's 3 Strikes Law imposes enhanced punishments when a defendant is convicted of a felony and the defendant has a prior felony that qualifies as 'serious.' A prior serious felony conviction is commonly referred to as a 'strike.' See, e.g., https://www.justice-firm.com/practice-areas/criminal-defense/three-strikes/: 'Effective March 7, 1994, Penal Code Section 667 was amended to provide for a 'Three Strikes You're Out' law. On November 8, 1994, the voters adopted Proposition 184, effective November 9, 1994, to add a seemingly identical version of a 'Three Strikes You're Out' law in a new Penal Code Section 1170.12 . It appears that both versions of 'Three Strikes' are currently in effect. A person who is convicted of a felony and has one qualifying 'strike' will be sentenced to a doubling of the term that otherwise would apply or, if a life sentence otherwise would apply, to a doubling of the minimum term of that life sentence, while a person who is convicted of a felony and has two or more qualifying 'strikes' will be sentenced to a life sentence with a minimum term of 25 years.' California Code, Penal Code - PEN \u00a7 667: '(a) ... (4) As used in this subdivision, 'serious felony' means a serious felony listed in subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7.' https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-667/ California Code, Penal Code - PEN \u00a7 1192.7: '(c) As used in this section, 'serious felony' means any of the following: ... (18) any burglary of the first degree.' https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-1192-7/",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 11": {
"description": "Identifies that first-degree burglary is a violent felony when a special allegation under PC 667.5(c)(21) is pled and proven.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "California Code, Penal Code - PEN \u00a7 667.5: '(c) For the purpose of this section, 'violent felony' means any of the following: ... (21) Any burglary of the first degree, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 460, wherein it is charged and proved that another person, other than an accomplice, was present in the residence during the commission of the burglary.' https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-667-5/",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 12": {
"description": "Concludes that the most serious charge the prosecution could bring against Ms. Restrepo is first-degree burglary with a special allegation under PC 667.5(c)(21).",
"sources": "Prompt.",
"justification": "ISSUE The prompt asks: '(1) what is the most serious charge she [the District Attorney] could bring against Ms. Restrepo, including any applicable enhancements or special allegations that could attach to the charge?' LAW As established in C9/29539, first-degree burglary carries a maximum of six years in custody. As established in C10/29540, first-degree burglary is a strike under California's 3 Strikes Law. As established in C11/29541, first-degree burglary is a violent felony when a special allegation under PC 667.5(c)(21) is pled and proven. APPLICATION As established in C5/29536, the prosecution's case for first-degree burglary is very strong. As established in C8/29538, the prosecution's case for a special allegation against Ms. Restrepo under PC 667.5(c)(21) is very strong. Thus, one candidate for the most serious charge is first-degree burglary with a special allegation under PC 667.5(c)(21), as this charge: - carries six years in custody - is a strike prior - is a violent felony Some charges that clearly don't apply include: - arson of an inhabited dwelling under PC 451(b) (no indication the dwelling itself was burned, just personal property within the dwelling) - arson causing great bodily injury under PC 451(a) (the injury was 'minor,' not 'great') - assault under PC 242/245 (assault requires proof the defendant was aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to realize that her act by its nature would directly and probably result in the application of force to someone, and here, Ms. Restrepo apparently didn't realize Ms. Ricard was in the bathtub when she threw the photograph) Enhancements/special allegations that clearly don't apply include: - great bodily injury enhancement under PC 12022.7 (this requires that the injury be more than 'minor,' and the prompt states the burn was minor, required no medical attention, and was healed completely within a day) Other charges that do apply are: - vandalism of the photograph - arson of property - battery Vandalism under PC 594 is a misdemeanor unless the property damaged was worth more than $400, which a polaroid surely isn't. Even as a felony, it carries at most 3 years in custody and is not a strike. See https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-594/. Battery under PC 243 is a misdemeanor unless the injury caused was 'serious bodily injury.' Even if the injury here were serious (which it isn't), battery causing serious bodily injury under PC 243(d) carries a maximum of 4 years in custody and is not a strike. See https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-243/. Arson of property under PC 451(d), while a strike, carries at most 3 years in custody, and is not a violent felony. See https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-451/ Thus, first-degree burglary, even without any special allegation, is the most serious applicable charge, as it carries the highest sentence (6 years) and is a strike. With the special allegation added under PC 667.5(c)(21), the charge becomes even more serious. Often called a 'hot prowl' or 'person present' allegation, this allegation, if pled and proven, converts first-degree burglary from a serious felony to a violent felony. Being convicted of a violent felony has significant consequences. Not only does it increase the amount of custody time one must serve to satisfy the sentence (discussed in C13/29543), it also creates the potential for a special 3-year sentencing enhancement for any future violent felonies under PC 667.5(a). CONCLUSION Thus, the most serious charge the prosecution could bring against Ms. Restrepo is first-degree burglary with a special allegation under PC 667.5(c)(21).",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
9,
10,
11,
6,
8
]
},
"criterion 13": {
"description": "States that when serving a sentence for a violent felony, custody credits are capped at 15%.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "California Code, Penal Code - PEN \u00a7 2933.1: '(a) Notwithstanding any other law, any person who is convicted of a felony offense listed in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 shall accrue no more than 15 percent of worktime credit, as defined in Section 2933. (b) The 15-percent limitation provided in subdivision (a) shall apply whether the defendant is sentenced under Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 1170) of Title 7 of Part 2 or sentenced under some other law.... (c) Notwithstanding Section 4019 or any other provision of law, the maximum credit that may be earned against a period of confinement in, or commitment to, a county jail, industrial farm, or road camp, or a city jail, industrial farm, or road camp, following arrest and prior to placement in the custody of the Director of Corrections, shall not exceed 15 percent of the actual period of confinement for any person specified in subdivision (a).' https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-2933-1/",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 14": {
"description": "Calculates that the maximum actual custody time Ms. Restrepo must serve in this case is 5.1 years (+/- 0.1).",
"sources": "Prompt.",
"justification": "ISSUE The prompt states: '(3) if convicted of the charge described in (1) (along with any applicable enhancements or special allegations), what is the maximum amount of actual custody time Ms. Restrepo may face? In the answer to question (3), assume the defendant will be awarded all applicable custody credits.' LAW As established in C11/29541, first-degree burglary is a violent felony when a special allegation under PC 667.5(c)(21) is pled and proven. As established in C13/29543, when serving a sentence for a violent felony, custody credits are capped at 15%. APPLICATION As established in C12/29542, the most serious charge the prosecution could bring against Ms. Restrepo is first-degree burglary with a special allegation under PC 667.5(c)(21). Because this is a violent felony, custody credits are capped at 15%. When custody credits are capped at 15%, the defendant must serve 85% of the imposed sentence. See, e.g., https://www.keglawyers.com/california-three-strikes-law: 'If convicted of a violent felony crime, you must serve 85% of the sentence.' As established in C9/29539, first-degree burglary carries a maximum of six years in custody. 6 years x .85 = 5.1. CONCLUSION Thus, the maximum actual custody time Ms. Restrepo must serve in this case is 5.1 years.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
9,
11,
13
]
}
}
|
documents/1323/CA PEN § 459.pdf
|
1,346
|
Legal
|
On October 19th, 2024, our client, Gerald Jefferson, aged 54, was found guilty of a violation of Penal Code (PC) section 415(2), as an infraction, based on his causing a disturbance in the Okee-Dokee convenience store located in Ashland, California. Okee-Dokee is owned and operated by Veronica Pugh. The day before the court hearing, Ms. Pugh had asked the Ashland Police to inform Mr. Jefferson that the Okee-Dokee was not open to him. At the court hearing, Ashland Police Officer Sarah Biscayne informed Mr. Jefferson that, at the request of Ms. Pugh, the Okee-Dokee was not open to him. Mr. Jefferson replied, "Yeah whatever," before exiting the courthouse.
On October 21st, 2025, Mr. Jefferson entered Okee-Dokee and began perusing the baked goods section. Ms. Pugh called the Ashland police and the police arrested Mr. Jefferson at Ms. Pugh's request. Ms. Pugh wants Mr. Jefferson charged for trespassing.
Mr. Jefferson has requested our assistance. Using the attached file, please draft a client advisement letter informing Mr. Jefferson of his potential criminal liability, under applicable state law, for trespassing. Your letter should identify and apply each element of the crime.
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "States that to commit a trespass under PC 602(t), the defendant must enter upon private property.",
"sources": "California Penal Code 602.pdf",
"justification": "California Code, Penal Code - PEN \u00a7 602: '(t)(1) Entering upon private property, including contiguous land, real property, or structures thereon belonging to the same owner, whether or not generally open to the public, after having been informed by a peace officer at the request of the owner, the owner's agent, or the person in lawful possession, and upon being informed by the peace officer that the peace officer is acting at the request of the owner, the owner's agent, or the person in lawful possession, that the property is not open to the particular person; or refusing or failing to leave the property upon being asked to leave the property in the manner provided in this subdivision. (2) This subdivision applies only to a person who has been convicted of a crime committed upon the particular private property. (3) A single notification or request to the person as set forth above shall be valid and enforceable under this subdivision unless and until rescinded by the owner, the owner's agent, or the person in lawful possession of the property. (4) Where the person has been convicted of a violent felony, as described in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5, this subdivision applies without time limitation. Where the person has been convicted of any other felony, this subdivision applies for no more than five years from the date of conviction. Where the person has been convicted of a misdemeanor, this subdivision applies for no more than two years from the date of conviction. Where the person was convicted for an infraction pursuant to Section 490.1, this subdivision applies for no more than one year from the date of conviction. This subdivision does not apply to convictions for any other infraction.' https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-602/ Three elements come from PC 602(t)(1). Here they are in unabridged form: - Entering upon private property, including contiguous land, real property, or structures thereon belonging to the same owner, whether or not generally open to the public, - after having been informed by a peace officer at the request of the owner, the owner's agent, or the person in lawful possession, - and upon being informed by the peace officer that the peace officer is acting at the request of the owner, the owner's agent, or the person in lawful possession, that the property is not open to the particular person A fourth element comes from PC 602(t)(2). Here it is in unabridged form: - This subdivision applies only to a person who has been convicted of a crime committed upon the particular private property. A fifth element comes from PC 602(t)(4). Here it is in unabridged form: - Where the person was convicted for an infraction pursuant to Section 490.1, this subdivision applies for no more than one year from the date of conviction. This subdivision does not apply to convictions for any other infraction. For efficiency, those five unabridged elements are reordered and boiled down to: (1) the defendant entered upon private property (2) the property's owner had previously requested a peace officer to inform the defendant that the property was not open to the defendant (3) a peace officer had previously informed the defendant that, at the request of the owner, the property was not open to the defendant (4) the defendant was previously convicted of a crime committed upon the particular private property (5) the crime the defendant previously committed upon the particular private property was not an infraction other than PC 490.1 Thus, to commit a trespass under PC 602(t), the defendant must enter upon private property.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "States that to qualify as a trespass under PC 602(t), the property owner must have previously requested a peace officer to inform the defendant that the property was not open to the defendant.",
"sources": "California Penal Code 602.pdf",
"justification": "California Code, Penal Code - PEN \u00a7 602: '(t)(1) Entering upon private property, including contiguous land, real property, or structures thereon belonging to the same owner, whether or not generally open to the public, after having been informed by a peace officer at the request of the owner, the owner's agent, or the person in lawful possession, and upon being informed by the peace officer that the peace officer is acting at the request of the owner, the owner's agent, or the person in lawful possession, that the property is not open to the particular person; or refusing or failing to leave the property upon being asked to leave the property in the manner provided in this subdivision. (2) This subdivision applies only to a person who has been convicted of a crime committed upon the particular private property. (3) A single notification or request to the person as set forth above shall be valid and enforceable under this subdivision unless and until rescinded by the owner, the owner's agent, or the person in lawful possession of the property. (4) Where the person has been convicted of a violent felony, as described in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5, this subdivision applies without time limitation. Where the person has been convicted of any other felony, this subdivision applies for no more than five years from the date of conviction. Where the person has been convicted of a misdemeanor, this subdivision applies for no more than two years from the date of conviction. Where the person was convicted for an infraction pursuant to Section 490.1, this subdivision applies for no more than one year from the date of conviction. This subdivision does not apply to convictions for any other infraction.' https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-602/ Three elements come from PC 602(t)(1). Here they are in unabridged form: - Entering upon private property, including contiguous land, real property, or structures thereon belonging to the same owner, whether or not generally open to the public, - after having been informed by a peace officer at the request of the owner, the owner's agent, or the person in lawful possession, - and upon being informed by the peace officer that the peace officer is acting at the request of the owner, the owner's agent, or the person in lawful possession, that the property is not open to the particular person A fourth element comes from PC 602(t)(2). Here it is in unabridged form: - This subdivision applies only to a person who has been convicted of a crime committed upon the particular private property. A fifth element comes from PC 602(t)(4). Here it is in unabridged form: - Where the person was convicted for an infraction pursuant to Section 490.1, this subdivision applies for no more than one year from the date of conviction. This subdivision does not apply to convictions for any other infraction. For efficiency, those five unabridged elements are reordered and boiled down to: (1) the defendant entered upon private property (2) the property's owner had previously requested a peace officer to inform the defendant that the property was not open to the defendant (3) a peace officer had previously informed the defendant that, at the request of the owner, the property was not open to the defendant (4) the defendant was previously convicted of a crime committed upon the particular private property (5) the crime the defendant previously committed upon the particular private property was not an infraction other than PC 490.1 Thus, to qualify as a trespass under PC 602(t), the property owner must have previously requested a peace officer to inform the defendant that the property was not open to the defendant.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "States that to qualify as a trespass under PC 602(t), a peace officer must have previously informed the defendant that, at the request of the owner, the property was not open to the defendant.",
"sources": "California Penal Code 602.pdf",
"justification": "California Code, Penal Code - PEN \u00a7 602: '(t)(1) Entering upon private property, including contiguous land, real property, or structures thereon belonging to the same owner, whether or not generally open to the public, after having been informed by a peace officer at the request of the owner, the owner's agent, or the person in lawful possession, and upon being informed by the peace officer that the peace officer is acting at the request of the owner, the owner's agent, or the person in lawful possession, that the property is not open to the particular person; or refusing or failing to leave the property upon being asked to leave the property in the manner provided in this subdivision. (2) This subdivision applies only to a person who has been convicted of a crime committed upon the particular private property. (3) A single notification or request to the person as set forth above shall be valid and enforceable under this subdivision unless and until rescinded by the owner, the owner's agent, or the person in lawful possession of the property. (4) Where the person has been convicted of a violent felony, as described in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5, this subdivision applies without time limitation. Where the person has been convicted of any other felony, this subdivision applies for no more than five years from the date of conviction. Where the person has been convicted of a misdemeanor, this subdivision applies for no more than two years from the date of conviction. Where the person was convicted for an infraction pursuant to Section 490.1, this subdivision applies for no more than one year from the date of conviction. This subdivision does not apply to convictions for any other infraction.' https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-602/ Three elements come from PC 602(t)(1). Here they are in unabridged form: - Entering upon private property, including contiguous land, real property, or structures thereon belonging to the same owner, whether or not generally open to the public, - after having been informed by a peace officer at the request of the owner, the owner's agent, or the person in lawful possession, - and upon being informed by the peace officer that the peace officer is acting at the request of the owner, the owner's agent, or the person in lawful possession, that the property is not open to the particular person A fourth element comes from PC 602(t)(2). Here it is in unabridged form: - This subdivision applies only to a person who has been convicted of a crime committed upon the particular private property. A fifth element comes from PC 602(t)(4). Here it is in unabridged form: - Where the person was convicted for an infraction pursuant to Section 490.1, this subdivision applies for no more than one year from the date of conviction. This subdivision does not apply to convictions for any other infraction. For efficiency, those five unabridged elements are reordered and boiled down to: (1) the defendant entered upon private property (2) the property's owner had previously requested a peace officer to inform the defendant that the property was not open to the defendant (3) a peace officer had previously informed the defendant that, at the request of the owner, the property was not open to the defendant (4) the defendant was previously convicted of a crime committed upon the particular private property (5) the crime the defendant previously committed upon the particular private property was not an infraction other than PC 490.1 Thus, to qualify as a trespass under PC 602(t), a peace officer must have previously informed the defendant that, at the request of the owner, the property was not open to the defendant.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "States that to commit a trespass under PC 602(t), the defendant must have previously been convicted of a crime committed upon the particular private property.",
"sources": "California Penal Code 602.pdf",
"justification": "California Code, Penal Code - PEN \u00a7 602: '(t)(1) Entering upon private property, including contiguous land, real property, or structures thereon belonging to the same owner, whether or not generally open to the public, after having been informed by a peace officer at the request of the owner, the owner's agent, or the person in lawful possession, and upon being informed by the peace officer that the peace officer is acting at the request of the owner, the owner's agent, or the person in lawful possession, that the property is not open to the particular person; or refusing or failing to leave the property upon being asked to leave the property in the manner provided in this subdivision. (2) This subdivision applies only to a person who has been convicted of a crime committed upon the particular private property. (3) A single notification or request to the person as set forth above shall be valid and enforceable under this subdivision unless and until rescinded by the owner, the owner's agent, or the person in lawful possession of the property. (4) Where the person has been convicted of a violent felony, as described in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5, this subdivision applies without time limitation. Where the person has been convicted of any other felony, this subdivision applies for no more than five years from the date of conviction. Where the person has been convicted of a misdemeanor, this subdivision applies for no more than two years from the date of conviction. Where the person was convicted for an infraction pursuant to Section 490.1, this subdivision applies for no more than one year from the date of conviction. This subdivision does not apply to convictions for any other infraction.' https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-602/ Three elements come from PC 602(t)(1). Here they are in unabridged form: - Entering upon private property, including contiguous land, real property, or structures thereon belonging to the same owner, whether or not generally open to the public, - after having been informed by a peace officer at the request of the owner, the owner's agent, or the person in lawful possession, - and upon being informed by the peace officer that the peace officer is acting at the request of the owner, the owner's agent, or the person in lawful possession, that the property is not open to the particular person A fourth element comes from PC 602(t)(2). Here it is in unabridged form: - This subdivision applies only to a person who has been convicted of a crime committed upon the particular private property. A fifth element comes from PC 602(t)(4). Here it is in unabridged form: - Where the person was convicted for an infraction pursuant to Section 490.1, this subdivision applies for no more than one year from the date of conviction. This subdivision does not apply to convictions for any other infraction. For efficiency, those five unabridged elements are reordered and boiled down to: (1) the defendant entered upon private property (2) the property's owner had previously requested a peace officer to inform the defendant that the property was not open to the defendant (3) a peace officer had previously informed the defendant that, at the request of the owner, the property was not open to the defendant (4) the defendant was previously convicted of a crime committed upon the particular private property (5) the crime the defendant previously committed upon the particular private property was not an infraction other than PC 490.1 Thus, to commit a trespass under PC 602(t), the defendant must have previously convicted of a crime committed upon the particular private property.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "States that trespass under PC 602(t) does not apply when the crime the defendant previously committed upon the private property was an infraction other than PC 490.1.",
"sources": "California Penal Code 602.pdf",
"justification": "California Code, Penal Code - PEN \u00a7 602: '(t)(1) Entering upon private property, including contiguous land, real property, or structures thereon belonging to the same owner, whether or not generally open to the public, after having been informed by a peace officer at the request of the owner, the owner's agent, or the person in lawful possession, and upon being informed by the peace officer that the peace officer is acting at the request of the owner, the owner's agent, or the person in lawful possession, that the property is not open to the particular person; or refusing or failing to leave the property upon being asked to leave the property in the manner provided in this subdivision. (2) This subdivision applies only to a person who has been convicted of a crime committed upon the particular private property. (3) A single notification or request to the person as set forth above shall be valid and enforceable under this subdivision unless and until rescinded by the owner, the owner's agent, or the person in lawful possession of the property. (4) Where the person has been convicted of a violent felony, as described in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5, this subdivision applies without time limitation. Where the person has been convicted of any other felony, this subdivision applies for no more than five years from the date of conviction. Where the person has been convicted of a misdemeanor, this subdivision applies for no more than two years from the date of conviction. Where the person was convicted for an infraction pursuant to Section 490.1, this subdivision applies for no more than one year from the date of conviction. This subdivision does not apply to convictions for any other infraction.' https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-602/ Three elements come from PC 602(t)(1). Here they are in unabridged form: - Entering upon private property, including contiguous land, real property, or structures thereon belonging to the same owner, whether or not generally open to the public, - after having been informed by a peace officer at the request of the owner, the owner's agent, or the person in lawful possession, - and upon being informed by the peace officer that the peace officer is acting at the request of the owner, the owner's agent, or the person in lawful possession, that the property is not open to the particular person A fourth element comes from PC 602(t)(2). Here it is in unabridged form: - This subdivision applies only to a person who has been convicted of a crime committed upon the particular private property. A fifth element comes from PC 602(t)(4). Here it is in unabridged form: - Where the person was convicted for an infraction pursuant to Section 490.1, this subdivision applies for no more than one year from the date of conviction. This subdivision does not apply to convictions for any other infraction. For efficiency, those five unabridged elements are reordered and boiled down to: (1) the defendant entered upon private property (2) the property's owner had previously requested a peace officer to inform the defendant that the property was not open to the defendant (3) a peace officer had previously informed the defendant that, at the request of the owner, the property was not open to the defendant (4) the defendant was previously convicted of a crime committed upon the particular private property (5) the crime the defendant previously committed upon the particular private property was not an infraction other than PC 490.1 Thus, to qualify as a trespass under PC 602(t), the crime the defendant previously committed upon the particular private property must be an infraction other than PC 490.1.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "Identifies that Mr. Jefferson entered the Okee-Dokee convenience store on October 21st, 2025.",
"sources": "Prompt.",
"justification": "ISSUE The prompt states: 'Identify and apply each element of trespassing.' LAW As established in C1/29783, to commit a trespass under PC 602(t), the defendant must enter upon private property. APPLICATION Per the prompt, Mr. Jefferson entered the Okee-Dokee convenience store on October 21, 2025.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "Identifies that prior to October 21st, 2025, Ms. Pugh had requested that Officer Biscayne inform Mr. Jefferson that Okee-Dokee was not open to him.",
"sources": "Prompt.",
"justification": "ISSUE The prompt states: 'Identify and apply each element of trespassing.' LAW As established in C2/29839, to qualify as a trespass under PC 602(t), the property owner must have previously requested a peace officer to inform the defendant that the property was not open to the defendant. APPLICATION Per the prompt, on the day before the court hearing [i.e., on October 18, 2024] Ms. Pugh had requested Officer Biscayne to inform Mr. Jefferson that Okee-Dokee was no longer open to Mr. Jefferson.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "Identifies that prior to October 21st, 2025, Officer Biscayne had informed Mr. Jefferson that, at the request of Ms. Pugh, Okee-Dokee was not open to Mr. Jefferson.",
"sources": "Prompt.",
"justification": "ISSUE The prompt states: 'Identify and apply each element of trespassing.' LAW As established in C3/29842, to qualify as a trespass under PC 602(t), a peace officer must have previously informed the defendant that, at the request of the owner, the property was not open to the defendant. APPLICATION Per the prompt, at the court hearing (i.e., on October 19, 2024), Ashland Police Officer Sarah Biscayne informed Mr. Jefferson that, at the request of Ms. Pugh, the Okee-Dokee was not open to him. Mr. Jefferson replied, 'Yeah whatever,' before exiting the courthouse, thereby indicating he heard the advisement.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 9": {
"description": "Identifies that prior to October 21st, 2025, Mr. Jefferson was convicted of a crime committed upon the grounds of Okee-Dokee.",
"sources": "Prompt.",
"justification": "ISSUE The prompt states: 'Identify and apply each element of trespassing.' LAW As established in C4/29841, to commit a trespass under PC 602(t), the defendant must have previously been convicted of a crime committed upon the particular private property. APPLICATION Per the prompt, on October 19th, 2024, our client, Gerald Jefferson, aged 54, was found guilty of a violation of Penal Code (PC) section 415(2), as an infraction, based on his causing a disturbance in the Okee-Dokee convenience store located in Ashland, California.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 10": {
"description": "Identifies that prior to October 21st, 2025, the crime that Mr. Jefferson was convicted of upon the grounds of Okee-Dokee was a violation of Penal Code (PC) section 415(2), as an infraction.",
"sources": "Prompt.",
"justification": "ISSUE The prompt states: 'Identify and apply each element of trespassing.' LAW As established in C5/29840, to qualify as a trespass under PC 602(t), the crime the defendant previously committed upon the particular private property was not an infraction other than PC 490.1 APPLICATION Per the prompt, on October 19th, 2024, our client, Gerald Jefferson, aged 54, was found guilty of a violation of Penal Code (PC) section 415(2), as an infraction, based on his causing a disturbance in the Okee-Dokee convenience store located in Ashland, California.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 11": {
"description": "Concludes that Mr. Jefferson will not be convicted of trespassing.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "ISSUE The prompt states: 'Write a client advisement letter informing Mr. Jefferson of his potential criminal liability for trespassing in this case.' LAW As established in C1/29783, to commit a trespass under PC 602(t), the defendant must enter upon private property. As established in C2/29839, to qualify as a trespass under PC 602(t), the property owner must have previously requested a peace officer to inform the defendant that the property was not open to the defendant. As established in C3/29842, to qualify as a trespass under PC 602(t), a peace officer must have previously informed the defendant that, at the request of the owner, the property was not open to the defendant. As established in C4/29841, to commit a trespass under PC 602(t), the defendant must have previously been convicted of a crime committed upon the particular private property. As established in C5/29840, to qualify as a trespass under PC 602(t), the crime the defendant previously committed upon the particular private property was not an infraction other than PC 490.1 APPLICATION As established in C6/29875, Mr. Jefferson entered the Okee-Dokee convenience store on October 21st, 2025. As established in C7/29810, prior to October 21st, 2025, Ms. Pugh had requested that Officer Biscayne inform Mr. Jefferson that Okee-Dokee was not open to him. As established in C8/32398 , prior to October 21st, 2025, Officer Biscayne had informed Mr. Jefferson that, at the request of Ms. Pugh, Okee-Dokee was not open to Mr. Jefferson. As established in C9/29787, prior to October 21st, 2025, Mr. Jefferson was convicted of a crime committed upon the grounds of Okee-Dokee. As established in C10/32399, prior to October 21st, 2025, the crime that Mr. Jefferson was convicted of upon the grounds of Okee-Dokee was a violation of Penal Code (PC) section 415(2), as an infraction. CONCLUSION While the first four elements are satisfied, the fifth element, which requires that the crime the defendant previously committed upon the particular private property was not an infraction other than PC 490.1, is not satisfied, because the prior crime that Mr. Jefferson committed at Okee-Dokee was PC 415(2) as an infraction, which is 'an infraction other than PC 490.1.' Because the fifth element is not satisfied, Mr. Jefferson is not liable for trespass under PC 602(t). In California, trespass is governed exclusively under PC 602. No other subdivisions of PC 602 apply to these facts. As such, Mr. Jefferson will not be convicted of trespassing.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1,
6,
9,
7,
2,
5,
4,
3,
8,
10
]
}
}
|
documents/1346/California Penal Code 602.pdf
|
1,361
|
Legal
|
Our client, BackUp, is a boutique IT services firm specializing in backup and disaster recovery. On March 10, 2024, BackUp agreed with ReGrid Renewables, a seller and refurbisher of hardware, to purchase five refurbished rack servers for use as primary backup servers for a new law firm client. BackUp's purchase order ("PO") stated, "Servers shall be enterprise-grade, fully tested, 128 GB RAM, and suitable for hosting encrypted backups." BackUp also said in the PO, "We require reliable hardware, as we host client data. Please advise if any units have known defects or have experienced prior data issues."
A ReGrid Renewables sales manager responded by email on March 11, 2024, stating, "We have the 5 servers, fully tested, enterprise-grade, and suitable for backups. We stand behind these units for production use, and I'll include a 30-day parts-and-labor warranty for ease of mind." ReGrid Renewables attached a one-page invoice listing the model, serial number, and price. At the bottom of the page, additional terms were printed in small, 10-point font below the logo. The text read "All sales are final and all items are sold 'as is'. Seller disclaims all warranties, express or implied." BackUp responded "ok" and wired the payment to ReGrid Renewables the same day.
Within two weeks of installing and hosting encrypted backups for BackUp's client, one of the servers repeatedly failed in a specific control function, resulting in silent data corruption for several days. BackUp did not detect this corruption immediately, and weeks later, the client lost access to several months of encrypted backup data. The client lost many billable hours, missed court deadlines due to the lost data, and suffered reputational harm as a result. BackUp performed further tests and discovered that two of the five servers had been shipped with refurbished drives that were not fully scrubbed, leaving residual data fragments, indicating poor refurbishment.
The client has initiated action against BackUp, who has now inquired whether they could recover from ReGrid Renewables if the client is successful in the suit. Using the attached document, prepare a legal memorandum analyzing the rights and obligations of the parties under UCC principles.
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "Concludes that ReGrid Renewables' March 11 email created all of the following express warranties regarding the servers: fully tested, enterprise-grade, and suitable for backups.",
"sources": "UCC Article 2.pdf, Prompt",
"justification": "Under the UCC, 'Express warranties by the seller are created as follows: (a) Any affirmation of fact or promise made by the seller to the buyer which relates to the goods and becomes part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the goods shall conform to the affirmation or promise [or] (b) Any description of the goods which is made part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the goods shall conform to the description' (UCC, 2-313(1)). https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-313 Here, ReGrid Renewables' March 11 email stated that the servers were 'fully tested, enterprise-grade, and suitable for backups.' These statements are specific, factual representations of the product's quality and fitness, not mere puffery. These statements, including the 30-day parts and labor warranty, further reinforce ReGrid Renewables' express affirmations or promises regarding the servers, which constitute express warranties.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "Concludes that the 'as is' language in the ReGrid Renewables' invoice did not negate the express warranties.",
"sources": "UCC Article 2.pdf, Prompt",
"justification": "Per C1, ReGrid Renewables' statements created express warranties that the servers were 'fully tested, enterprise-grade, and suitable for backups.' (UCC, 2-313(1)). https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-313 However, per the facts, the PO contained inconsistent language, stating that all sales were final, and that the products were sold 'as is'. Under UCC 2-316(1), a disclaimer that is inconsistent with an express warranty is ineffective to the extent of the inconsistency: '(1) Words or conduct relevant to the creation of an express warranty and words or conduct tending to negate or limit warranty shall be construed wherever reasonable as consistent with each other; but subject to the provisions of this Article on parol or extrinsic evidence (Section 2-202) negation or limitation is inoperative to the extent that such construction is unreasonable.' Thus, despite the 'as is' clause, ReGrid's statement created an express warranty that the servers complied with the specifications stated. https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-316",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1
]
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "Concludes that ReGrid Renewables violated the express warranties.",
"sources": "UCC Article 2.pdf, Prompt",
"justification": "Per C1, ReGrid Renewables' statements on the March 11 email created express warranties that the servers were 'fully tested, enterprise-grade, and suitable for backups.' (U.C.C., 2-313(1)), and per C2, the 'as is' language in the PO did not negate the express warranties (U.C.C., 2-316). https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-313 https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-316 Per the facts, within two weeks of use, one of the servers repeatedly failed in a specific control aspect, causing silent data corruption and resulting in the loss of access to several months of encrypted backup data. Tests revealed that two of the five servers had been shipped with refurbished drives that were not fully scrubbed, leaving residual data fragments, indicating poor refurbishment. These facts suggest that the servers were not fully tested and were not suitable for backups. Thus, ReGrid Renewables violated the express warranties regarding the servers that they previously made in the March 11 email to BackUp.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1,
2
]
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "Concludes that ReGrid Renewables violated the duty of good faith.",
"sources": "UCC Article 2.pdf Prompt",
"justification": "Section 1-304 of the UCC states that 'every contract or duty within the Uniform Commercial Code imposes an obligation of good faith in its performance and enforcement' (UCC \u00a71-304). Further, the UCC defines good faith as 'means honesty in fact and the observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing in the trade' (UCC, \u00a72-103(b)). https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/1-304 https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-103 Per the facts, ReGrid Renewables' email stated that the servers were 'fully tested, suitable for hosting encrypted client backups' and included a 30-day parts-and-labor warranty. However, their PO contained inconsistent language, stating that all sales were final, and that the products were sold 'as is', which they later attempted to force. These obviously conflicting statements and enforcement imply a lack of honesty and commercial integrity. Thus, it seems likely that ReGrid Renewables violated the duty of good faith.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "Concludes that ReGrid Renewables breached the implied warranty of merchantability.",
"sources": "UCC Article 2.pdf, Prompt",
"justification": "Under the UCC, 'Unless excluded or modified (Section 2-316), a warranty that the goods shall be merchantable is implied in a contract for their sale if the seller is a merchant with respect to goods of that kind' (UCC, 2-314(1)). Further, 'Goods to be merchantable must be at least such as (a) pass without objection in the trade under the contract description; and (b) in the case of fungible goods, are of fair average quality within the description; and (c) are fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used; and (d) run, within the variations permitted by the agreement, of even kind, quality and quantity within each unit and among all units involved; and (e) are adequately contained, packaged, and labeled as the agreement may require; and (f) conform to the promise or affirmations of fact made on the container or label if any' (UCC, 2-314(2)). https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-314 Here, both parties are merchants. Per the facts, the servers failed after two weeks due to defective controls and included unsanitized drives. These defects show that the goods were not fit for their ordinary purpose, which here was reliable data storage. These servers do not 'pass without objection' in the trade and are thus not merchantable, especially given the sensitivity of backup. Since the servers were not merchantable, Regrid Renewables breached the implied warranty of merchantability.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "Concludes that ReGrid Renewables breached the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.",
"sources": "UCC Article 2.pdf, Prompt",
"justification": "Under the UCC, 'Where the seller at the time of contracting has reason to know any particular purpose for which the goods are required and that the buyer is relying on the seller's skill or judgment to select or furnish suitable goods, there is unless excluded or modified under the next section an implied warranty that the goods shall be fit for such purpose' (UCC, 2-315). https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-315 Here, BackUp explicitly stated that the servers would be used to host encrypted client backups and requested 'reliable hardware,' notification of 'known defects,' and 'prior data issues.' Regrid Renewables was fully aware of BackUp's particular purpose beyond ordinary resale, and their response (promising that it was fully tested and suitable for backup servers) further shows their awareness of that reliance. Because ReGrid Renewables then supplied defective servers, it seems likely that it breached the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "Concludes that ReGrid Renewables PO disclaimer did not negate the implied warranties.",
"sources": "UCC Article 2.pdf, Prompt",
"justification": "Under the UCC, 'to exclude or modify the implied warranty of merchantability or any part of it the language must mention merchantability and in case of a writing must be conspicuous, and to exclude or modify any implied warranty of fitness the exclusion must be by a writing and conspicuous' (UCC, 2-316(2)) and 'unless the circumstances indicate otherwise, all implied warranties are excluded by expressions like 'as is', 'with all faults' or other language which in common understanding calls the buyer's attention to the exclusion of warranties and makes plain that there is no implied warranty' (UCC, 2-316(3)(a)). https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-316 Here, the disclaimer included at the bottom of the PO stated, in small, 10-point font, that 'All sales are final and all items are sold 'as is'. Seller disclaims all warranties, express or implied.' Size 10 font is generally considered to be small and not conspicuous; the writing was hidden at the bottom of the page, and additionally, the disclaimer did not refer to 'merchantability.' Despite the 'as is' language, given the conflicting nature of statements, small-print, placement, and failure to refer to 'merchantability,' a court would likely find that this disclaimer is ineffective in disclaiming both the implied warranty of merchantability and the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "Concludes that BackUp may recover direct damages.",
"sources": "UCC Article 2.pdf, Prompt",
"justification": "Under the UCC, an injured buyer 'may recover as damages for any non-conformity of tender the loss resulting in the ordinary course of events from the seller's breach' (UCC 2-714(1)). https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-714 'The measure of damages for breach of warranty is the difference at the time and place of acceptance between the value of the goods accepted and the value they would have had if they had been as warranted, unless special circumstances show proximate damages of a different amount' (UCC 2-714(2)) and 'incidental and consequential damages under the next section may also be recovered' (UCC 2-714(3)). https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-714 According to C3, C5, and C6, ReGrid Renewables has violated both implied and express warranties, as the delivered servers were defective and breached the contract. In this case, BackUp may seek damages for this breach, measured by the difference between the value of the servers received and the value of fully functioning servers as initially agreed upon in the contract.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
6,
5,
3
]
},
"criterion 9": {
"description": "Identifies that ReGrid Renewables' 30-day warranty failed its essential purpose.",
"sources": "UCC Article 2.pdf, Prompt",
"justification": "Under the UCC, a contract 'may provide for remedies\u2026 in substitution for those provided in this Article and may limit or alter the measure of damages recoverable under this Article, as by limiting the buyer's remedies to return of the goods and repayment of the price or to repair and replacement of non-conforming goods or parts' (UCC 2-719(1)) and 'Where circumstances cause an exclusive or limited remedy to fail of its essential purpose, remedy may be had as provided in this Act' (UCC 2-719(2)). https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-719 Per the facts, ReGrid Renewables' sales manager stated that he would include a 30-day parts-and-labor warranty for peace of mind. This 30-day warranty could be construed as a limitation of remedies, intended to limit damages by requiring the return of the goods for replacement within 30 days. However, this remedy failed in its essential purpose, as the defects were not discoverable and caused further damage; thus, BackUp can pursue ordinary remedies under the UCC.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 10": {
"description": "Concludes that BackUp may recover foreseeable consequential damages.",
"sources": "UCC Article 2.pdf, Prompt",
"justification": "Under the UCC, 'Consequential damages resulting from the seller's breach include: any loss resulting from general or particular requirements and needs of which the seller at the time of contracting had reason to know and which could not reasonably be prevented by cover or otherwise; and injury to person or property proximately resulting from any breach of warranty' (UCC 2-715(2)). Consequential damages under the UCC include 'all consequential damages of which he [the seller] had 'reason to know' in advance\u2026[and that] the buyer could not reasonably have prevented the loss by cover or otherwise' (UCC 2-715 (comment 2)) and 'Particular needs of the buyer must generally be made known to the seller' (UCC 2-715 (comment 3)). https://law.justia.com/codes/ohio/2006/orc/jd_130289-546d.html As noted in C3, C5, and C6, ReGrid Renewables violated both express and implied warranties, and the servers delivered were defective, constituting a breach of the contract. Per C8, BackUp may recover damages resulting from this breach, including reasonable and foreseeable consequential damages. According to the facts, the defective servers repeatedly failed, leading to silent data corruption and causing the client to lose access to several months' worth of encrypted backup data. As a consequence, the client incurred many billable hours, missed court deadlines due to the lost data, and suffered reputational harm. The client has now initiated legal action against BackUp to recover these damages. Additionally, the prompt indicates that Regrid Renewables was fully aware of BackUp's specific purpose beyond ordinary resale. Specifically, the PO states, ' We require reliable hardware, as we host client data. Please advise if any units have known defects or have experienced prior data issues.' Therefore, these lawsuits likely involve foreseeable consequential damages for which BackUp may be liable.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
6,
5,
3,
8
]
},
"criterion 11": {
"description": "Concludes that BackUp likely could not have prevented the client losses.",
"sources": "UCC Article 2.pdf, Prompt",
"justification": "Consequential damages under the UCC include 'all consequential damages of which he [the seller] had 'reason to know' in advance\u2026[and that] the buyer could not reasonably have prevented the loss by cover or otherwise' (UCC 2-715(comment 2)). https://law.justia.com/codes/ohio/2006/orc/jd_130289-546d.html Regrid Renewables may contend that the consequential losses resulting from the client's lawsuit are overly remote or speculative, and that additional preventive measures by BackUp could have mitigated those losses. According to the facts, BackUp did not immediately identify the defects; however, as soon as there were any indications of a problem, it conducted further inspections on the servers. BackUp relied on Regrid Renewables' expertise and explicit statements. The defect was not easily detectable, and if the goods had met the seller's promises, the damage would not have occurred. Therefore, BackUp could not have reasonably prevented this loss.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
10
]
},
"criterion 12": {
"description": "Identifies that ReGrid Renewables may not have proximately caused the client damages.",
"sources": "UCC Article 2.pdf, Prompt",
"justification": "Under the UCC, consequential damages allow for recovery 'for injuries 'proximately' resulting from the breach. Where the injury involved follows the use of goods without discovery of the defect causing the damage, the question of 'proximate' cause turns on whether it was reasonable for the buyer to use the goods without such inspection as would have revealed the defects' (UCC 2-715(comment 5)). https://law.justia.com/codes/ohio/2006/orc/jd_130289-546d.html According to the facts, the servers delivered by ReGrid Renewables were defective. Although the defects were not immediately apparent, BackUp discovered issues with the servers during inspection. As a sophisticated commercial buyer specializing in backup services, BackUp is likely capable of implementing safety systems. It is reasonable to expect them to have safeguards in place to protect the data they handle, which is their core service, including conducting inspections before using the servers. However, their mitigation measures may not have been sufficient given the nature of the data and circumstances. As a result, BackUp's failure to detect the defects may have disrupted the chain of causation, meaning that ReGrid Renewables may not be liable for all the consequential damages incurred from the server defects.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
11
]
}
}
|
documents/1361/UCC Article 2.pdf
|
1,366
|
Legal
|
Angela Brown was driving home from college on July 5, 2025 in Andover, Connecticut, when her vehicle was struck by a semi-truck. The semi-truck was owned by our client, Acme Trucking, and was operated by Acme Trucking's employee Winston Smith.
Mr. Smith did not see the stop sign, went through the intersection and t-boned Ms. Brown's vehicle. The intersecting road was 2 lanes in each direction and Mr. Smith crossed three lanes prior to striking Ms. Brown's vehicle. Ms. Brown stated she never saw the semi-truck prior to impact and she took no evasive actions.
Ms. Brown sustained a cervical strain/sprain, a concussion, and a sprained wrist. She was initially treated at Memorial Hospital and was released the same day, with the physicians requiring rest for one week, a wrist-splint, and 8 weeks of physical therapy. She treated with a physical therapist three times a week for 8 weeks. The medical bills incurred included the following:
EMT Ambulance - $1,000.
Memorial Hospital - $20,000.
Physical Therapy - $24,000.
EMT Ambulance wrote-off $500 of the balance voluntarily. The remaining balance of $500 for EMT Ambulance was paid by Ms. Brown's health insurance provider Memorial Hospital wrote-off $10,000 of the balance. Additionally, $6,500 was reduced by contractual agreements with Ms. Brown's insurer. The remaining balance of $4,500 was paid by Ms. Brown's health insurance provider. Physical Therapy reduced the bill per prior contractual rates with Ms. Brown's insurance company to $10,000. The outstanding balance was paid by Ms. Brown's health insurance provider.
Ms. Brown missed five days of work as a paralegal, totaling $2,000 in lost wages.
Ms. Brown's attorney has submitted a demand package claiming $45,000 in medical expenses, $2,000 in lost wages, and $60,000 in pain and suffering.
Please provide a legal memorandum, taking into consideration the documents attached, evaluating the liability and potential defenses available to Acme Trucking and Winston Smith, and summarizing the potential economic damages that Ms. Brown can recover. Please do not provide an analysis on the noneconomic damages.
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "States that Mr. Smith is liable for Ms. Brown's damages due to his failure to yield the right-of-way.",
"sources": "Ct. Gen. Stat. 14-301.pdf",
"justification": "Per Connecticut law, '[t]he driver of a vehicle shall stop in obedience to a stop sign at such clearly marked stop line or lines as may be established by the traffic authority having jurisdiction or, in the absence of such line or lines, shall stop in obedience to a stop sign at the entrance to a through highway and shall yield the right-of-way to vehicles not so obliged to stop which are within the intersection or approaching so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard. (Ct. Gen. Stat. 14-301 (c)). Mr. Smith breached his duty to stop at the stop sign and he did not yield the right-of-way to oncoming vehicles, such as Ms. Brown. Accordingly, Mr. Smith will be considered negligent and liable for Ms. Brown's injuries.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "States that Acme Trucking is liable for Ms. Brown's damages under 'respondeat superior'.",
"sources": "Ct. Gen. Stat. 52-183.pdf",
"justification": "Section 52-183 provides that '[i]n any civil action brought against the owner of a motor vehicle to recover damages for the negligent or reckless operation of the motor vehicle, the operator, if he is other than the owner of the motor vehicle, shall be presumed to be the agent and servant of the owner of the motor vehicle and operating it in the course of his employment. The defendant shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption.' (Ct. Gen. Stat. 52-183). As noted in the prompt, the semi-truck was owned by Acme Trucking and was operated by Acme Trucking's employee, Mr. Smith. Therefore, there is a presumption under Connecticut law that he was operating the vehicle in the course of his employment. There are no facts provided that would rebut the presumption. As such, Acme Trucking can also be held responsible for Ms. Brown's damages under a vicarious liability theory or 'respondeat superior.'",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "States that Ms. Brown's recovery may be reduced in proportion to any comparative fault she may have in contributing to the accident.",
"sources": "Ct. Gen. Stat. 52-572h.pdf",
"justification": "Under Connecticut law, where a plaintiff is 50% or less at fault, the plaintiff's damages must be diminished in proportion to the plaintiff's negligence. If the plaintiff's fault is greater than the defendant's fault (51%), the plaintiff is barred from recovery. (Ct. Gen. Stat. 52-572h (b), (c)). Ms. Brown stated that she never saw the semi-truck, despite it crossing three lanes of traffic before striking her vehicle. She also took no evasive actions. She may be found to have been inattentive and, had she seen the vehicle and applied the brakes, could have possibly avoided the accident. As such, a factfinder may find that she contributed, partially, to the accident, although Mr. Smith will still be found majority at fault.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "Identifies that the recovery of economic damages will be reduced based on Ms. Brown's comparative negligence.",
"sources": "Ct. Gen. Stat. 52-572h.pdf",
"justification": "'Economic damages' means compensation determined by the trier of fact for pecuniary losses including, but not limited to, the cost of reasonable and necessary medical care, rehabilitative services, custodial care and loss of earnings or earning capacity excluding any noneconomic damages'. (Ct. Gen. Stat. 52-572h(a)(1)). Ms. Brown has claimed economic damages in connection with the following: EMT Ambulance - $1,000. Memorial Hospital - $20,000. Physical Therapy - $24,000. Lost Wages - $2,000. 'Recoverable economic damages' means the economic damages reduced by any applicable findings including but not limited to set-offs, credits, comparative negligence, additur and remittitur, and any reduction for applicable collateral sources. (Ct. Gen. Stat. 52-572h(a)(3)). The above-listed economic damages incurred by Ms. Brown are recoverable subject to reductions based on Ms. Brown's comparative negligence and any applicable collateral sources.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "States that Ms. Brown's damages will be reduced by applicable collateral sources.",
"sources": "Hassett v. City of New Haven.pdf",
"justification": "In Connecticut, courts are required to initially calculate the amount of the plaintiff's total damages proximately caused by the tortfeasor and then deduct the appropriate amount of 'collateral sources' as that term is defined by \u00a7 52-225b. (Hassett v. City of New Haven, 858 A. 2d 922, 925 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2004)). 'Collateral sources' means any payments made to the claimant, or on his behalf, by or pursuant to: (1) Any health or sickness insurance, automobile accident insurance that provides health benefits, and any other similar insurance benefits, except life insurance benefits available to the claimant, whether purchased by him or provided by others; or (2) any contract or agreement of any group, organization, partnership or corporation to provide, pay for or reimburse the costs of hospital, medical, dental or other health care services. 'Collateral sources' do not include amounts received by a claimant as a settlement. (Ct. Gen. Stat. 52-225b). Absent any applicable exception or prohibition, Ms. Brown's economic damages may be reduced by applicable collateral sources.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "States that no reductions are allowed for collateral payments for which a right of subrogation exists.",
"sources": "Marciano v. Jimenez.pdf Ct. Gen. Stat. 52-225a.pdf",
"justification": "Section 52-225a makes an exception to the required deduction for collateral source payments for which a right of subrogation, or reimbursement, exists. (Marciano v. Jimenez, 151 A. 3d 1280, 1281 (Ct. 2016)). As noted by the Connecticut Supreme Court, 'if there is any right of subrogation, a reduction is precluded. The phrase 'no reduction' in \u00a7 52-225a (a) leaves no doubt that if a right of subrogation exists, the trial court cannot order a collateral source reduction of any amount'. (Marciano v. Jimenez, 151 A. 3d 1280, 1284 (Ct. 2016)). Assuming that Ms. Brown's healthcare insurer has a right of subrogation, a collateral source reduction is prohibited.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
5
]
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "States that voluntary write-offs are not 'collateral sources.'",
"sources": "Hassett v. City of New Haven.pdf",
"justification": "Subsequently forgiven debts are not collateral sources under the statute. (Hassett v. City of New Haven, 858 A. 2d 922, 924 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2004)). Accordingly, the voluntary write-offs by the medical providers, which are 'subsequently forgiven debts', will not count as a collateral source payment that can be reduced.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
5
]
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "States that collateral source reductions are offset by any premium payments made by Ms. Brown or on her behalf.",
"sources": "Jones v. Kramer.pdf Alvarado v. Black.pdf Ct. Gen. Stat. 52-225a.pdf",
"justification": "\u00a7 52-225a authorizes the trial court to reduce the plaintiff's economic damages award by an amount equal to the sum of collateral source payments received by the plaintiff, less any amount paid by or on behalf of the plaintiff to secure those payments. (Jones v. Kramer, 267 Conn. 336, 339 (Ct. 2004)). Collateral source reduction is a two part process: (1) the total amount of collateral source benefits a claimant has received is determined in accordance with \u00a7 52-225a (b); and (2) that amount is then decreased, pursuant to \u00a7 52-225a (c), by the total amount that has been 'paid, contributed, or forfeited ... by, or on behalf of, the claimant or members of his immediate family' to secure those benefits. (Alvarado v. Black, 248 Conn. 409, 413 (Ct. 1999)). Applying the above to the current situation, the payments made by the Ms. Brown's health insurer constitute collateral source payments within the meaning of \u00a7 52-225b. Consequently, those payments can be included in the first step of the calculation of the amount by which the defendant is entitled to a reduction of the economic damages. As previously noted, \u00a7 52-225a (c) permits Ms. Brown to offset the amount of a reduction for collateral source benefits she has received by 'any amount which has been paid, contributed, or forfeited ... by, or on behalf of, the claimant or members of his immediate family to secure his right to any collateral source benefit which he has received as a result of such injury or death.' Thus, the premium payments made by Ms. Brown to secure the health insurance can be used to offset the collateral source payment reduction. (Alvarado v. Black, 248 Conn. 409, 414-15 (Ct. 1999)).",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
5
]
}
}
|
documents/1366/1366_Alvarado v. Black.pdf
documents/1366/1366_Hassett v. City of New Haven.pdf
documents/1366/1366_Jones v. Kramer.pdf
documents/1366/1366_Marciano v. Jimenez.pdf
documents/1366/Ct. Gen. Stat. 14-301.pdf
documents/1366/Ct. Gen. Stat. 52-183.pdf
documents/1366/Ct. Gen. Stat. 52-225a.pdf
documents/1366/Ct. Gen. Stat. 52-225b.pdf
documents/1366/Ct. Gen. Stat. 52-572h.pdf
|
1,367
|
Legal
|
The client is a Virginia biotechnology company ("Company") that develops proprietary hemp seed genetics used in producing low-THC varieties grown for extraction into concentrates for wellness and industrial products. Two years ago, Company's founder began dating a public figure ("Friend") active in the cannabis industry who had expressed interest in growing industrial hemp. A few months into their relationship, the couple split, and several hemp plants containing Company's proprietary genetics ("Genetics") went missing from an off-site experimental greenhouse in Virginia ("Greenhouse") known only to Company's founder and Friend. Six months later, Friend began publicly promoting a "new" low-THC variety ("New Genetics") exhibiting multiple traits identical to those of the missing plants.
Following informal communications, Company accused Friend of commercializing the strain under a new trade name and distributing derivative seed stock. Friend denies any infringement, asserting that the underlying genome originated from its own parental lines and that no agreements ever existed between them. Both sides now wish to resolve the dispute privately to avoid litigation and preserve the option of future collaboration. Friend has proposed entering into an agreement under which it will make a lump-sum payment to Company and pay continuing royalties tied to net seed sales for a limited period. Company has agreed in principle but insists that any release exclude regulatory or tax penalties and that it retain audit rights over Friend's production data.
To that end, the agreement should preserve Company's commercial interests, define each party's continuing rights to the disputed material, and ensure that any future use or disclosure occurs under clear, enforceable terms. Prepare an agreement ("Agreement") that resolves the risks clearly implied by these facts and provides Company with protection against operational, regulatory, and liability exposure, while ensuring the arrangement remains commercially workable and enforceable under applicable law, including Va. Code § 3.2-4115(A) (attached as "4115A.pdf").
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "Requires that continuing royalty payments apply only for a fixed term following execution of the Agreement.",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "The prompt specifies that royalties are to continue only for a limited period, so the Agreement must include a clear end date or duration, and defining a fixed term prevents open-ended obligations and ensures that the arrangement functions as a transitional license rather than an ongoing revenue-sharing relationship.\u00a0 This also provides a natural cutoff that aligns with the parties' intent to resolve the dispute fully.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "Requires that royalties apply only to licensed hemp activities conducted in compliance with applicable hemp regulations.",
"sources": "4115A.pdf",
"justification": "Limiting royalty accrual to lawful hemp activity ensures that Company does not profit from or appear to facilitate violations of hemp law, without forfeiting payment for compliant production. Virginia law prohibits any person from growing, handling, or processing hemp without registration from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Va. Code \u00a7 3.2-4115(A)), and this clause keeps the Agreement enforceable under federal law (7 U.S.C. \u00a7 1639p) while complementing Company's separate right to suspend Friend's license upon evidence of noncompliance. https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title3.2/chapter41.1/section3.2-4115/ https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/1639p",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1
]
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "Requires Friend to make a one-time lump-sum settlement payment to Company as part of the overall resolution.",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "The prompt explicitly states that Friend will pay a lump-sum to settle the dispute, so the Agreement must include that obligation to ensure the release is supported by consideration and provides immediate compensation for past use of Company's Genetics, which resolves prior claims cleanly and distinguishes the settlement payment from future royalties.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "Defines New Genetics by requiring it to include at least five of the following elements: Company's proprietary parental Genetics; derived material; reference DNA or genotypic data; deposited reference sample; or identifiable breeding technology.",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "The prompt makes clear that Friend's 'new' strain looks identical to Company's missing plants, so the definition of New Genetics needs to be expansive.\u00a0 Listing concrete markers such as parental lines, DNA sequences, and a lab-held reference sample creates a measurable boundary for what is licensed and mirrors the evidentiary framework for distinct plant varieties under 7 U.S.C. \u00a7 2321 et seq. and the infringement provisions of 7 U.S.C. \u00a7 2541, which together define how genetic distinctness and ownership are proven under federal law.\u00a0 Failing to precisely define the scope of the New Genetics could allow Friend to easily rebrand under another name. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/2321 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/2541",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "States that Company retains ownership of all genetic material related to the New Genetics.",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "Stating that Company keeps ownership of all genetic material is a basic but critical safeguard because it clarifies that Company is providing Friend with only a temporary license, not an ownership interest. This type of license is routine in seed-technology and biotech collaboration agreements because it blocks any implied assignment of intellectual property rights and keeps control with the original developer.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "States that Friend must maintain a current hemp producer registration issued by the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.",
"sources": "4115A.pdf",
"justification": "Virginia law prohibits growing or processing hemp without a Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS) registration and permit (Va. Code \u00a7 3.2-4115(A)). The Agreement should require Friend to keep its registration current so that every plant grown or sold under the deal is legal, and doing so provides a simple way for Company to confirm compliance during audits without having to monitor Friend's daily operations. https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title3.2/chapter41.1/section3.2-4115/",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "States that the license grant to Friend to use the New Genetics includes at least three of the following restrictions: limited, non-exclusive, non-transferable, time-bound to the royalty period, or revocable upon noncompliance.",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "The prompt implies that Company will allow Friend to continue using the New Genetics through a settlement involving royalty payments, which requires a clearly defined license. To keep Company's rights protected, the license must include explicit limitations, such as being limited in scope, non-exclusive, non-transferable, time-bound to the royalty period, and revocable for breach or noncompliance, which ensure Friend's use remains within the narrow purpose of resolving the dispute while preserving Company's ownership and control over the Genetics.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "Authorizes Company to suspend Friend's license upon at least three of the following occurrences: receipt of a regulator violation notice, failure to provide a current registration, failure to supply certificates of analysis, failure to remit royalties, or credible evidence of noncompliance.",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "A suspension right gives Company a quick, low-conflict way to stop Friend's operations if there's a red flag, such as a failed THC test, a missing certificate, or a late royalty report. Because hemp is a regulated crop under 7 C.F.R. Part 990 and regulators expect license holders to act immediately when compliance issues surface, having a clear list of triggers for suspension lets Company freeze activity before the situation escalates into an enforcement problem. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-7/subtitle-B/chapter-IX/part-990",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
7
]
},
"criterion 9": {
"description": "Requires Friend to indemnify Company for at least five of the following categories of loss: fines, penalties, tax assessments, product seizure costs, destruction costs, investigation expenses, defense expenses, or regulator-mandated remediation.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "If Friend violates hemp rules and gets fined or sued, indemnity ensures that Friend pays, not Company. This allocation mirrors how agribusiness contracts handle field-level risk under Virginia common law, where the operator carries the liability because it controls compliance (see Estes Express Lines v. Chopper Express, Inc., 273 Va. 358, 365-367 (2007)), and it also protects Company if regulators claim that its royalties were profits from illegal conduct. https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/59146ee0add7b0493433eac2",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 10": {
"description": "States that Friend must report royalty data to Company at least monthly.",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "Monthly royalty reports let Company spot trends or shortfalls quickly, keep the numbers aligned with payments, and make sure revenue comes from compliant seed sales. This process follows standard accounting practice in royalty-based licensing.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1
]
},
"criterion 11": {
"description": "Grants Company the right to audit Friend's records concerning New Genetics at least quarterly.",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "Quarterly audits balance control and practicality, and because the prompt says Company wants audit rights, this provision gives it enough access to check Friend's sales and compliance records without micromanaging. Regular audits discourage underreporting and are standard in licensing deals where royalties depend on self-reported sales data.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1
]
},
"criterion 12": {
"description": "Prohibits Friend from at least five of the following actions without Company's written consent: breeding new lines from New Genetics, backcrossing, introgression, rebranding derived material, exporting seed for replication, or sublicensing to third parties.",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "Friend already rebranded Company's strain once by producing the New Genetics, so the Agreement needs clear guardrails to prevent continued misuse of the Genetics. Prohibiting derivative work, such as backcrossing, relabeling, or sublicensing, closes the loopholes that allow someone to commercialize the same genetics under another name. These restrictions also mirror the limits in the Plant Variety Protection Act (7 U.S.C. \u00a7 2541(1)-(2)), which prohibit reproducing or selling protected seed without the owner's consent. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/2541",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
7
]
},
"criterion 13": {
"description": "Requires Friend to provide written certification of destruction of all New Genetics within 30 days after termination of the license (acceptable range: 15 to 30 days).",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Once the deal terminates and license ends, Friend must confirm that every plant, seed, or tissue sample is destroyed within a set period, and setting a timeframe of fifteen to thirty days is typical, and documentation gives Company proof that the Genetics are out of circulation and helps prevent them from resurfacing later in commerce or research.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
7
]
},
"criterion 14": {
"description": "Limits the license to jurisdictions where the licensed activity is lawful.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "This clause prevents Friend from producing or selling hemp in areas where such activities remain restricted. Under 7 U.S.C. \u00a7 1639p(a)(2), only states and tribes with approved plans can regulate hemp, so tying the license to jurisdictions where producing or selling hemp is lawful ensures neither party steps outside a recognized program and helps avoid federal preemption or state-law conflicts. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/1639p",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
7
]
},
"criterion 15": {
"description": "States that at least four of the following obligations survive termination of the Agreement: confidentiality, nonuse of New Genetics, cooperation with post-termination audits, destruction certification, or indemnification.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Even after termination, risks to Company can arise if Friend keeps data or material. The Agreement should ensure that confidentiality, nonuse of New Genetics, cooperation with post-termination audits, destruction certification, and indemnification obligations survive so that Company's Genetics remain protected and it can still audit or recover losses from pre-termination conduct. These survival clauses are standard in biotech settlements because proprietary materials retain value long after a license ends.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
9,
11,
12,
13
]
},
"criterion 16": {
"description": "Requires that the Agreement include a mutual release of past claims arising from the dispute over the Genetics.",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "Because the prompt states that the parties 'wish to resolve the dispute privately to avoid litigation,' the Agreement must include a release clause that settles all prior claims relating to the Genetics. A clear release confirms that the lump-sum payment and royalty structure constitute full consideration for resolving the dispute and prevent either party from reopening past infringement or ownership claims. A mutual release is standard practice in intellectual property settlements where prior conduct is disputed and both parties seek finality.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 17": {
"description": "Requires that the settlement release expressly exclude any waiver of any penalties from its scope.",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "The prompt explicitly states that Company 'insists that any release exclude regulatory or tax penalties,' so the Agreement should require that the release not waive liability for government-imposed penalties or taxes. This carveout prevents the release from being construed as shielding unlawful conduct or unpaid tax obligations. It makes the release enforceable and consistent with the parties' intent to resolve only private claims, not regulatory or statutory liabilities.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
16
]
}
}
|
documents/1367/4115A.pdf
|
1,371
|
Legal
|
On May 23, 2025, at about 3:40 p.m., Jim, carrying a black handgun, entered the front door of a Wells Fargo Bank in Richmond, Virginia. He was wearing a mask covering his nose and mouth, a gray hoodie, and a yellow vest.
A teller at the bank, Janet stated that Jim barged in, and upon hearing a scream, she ducked behind her desk. Jim was pointing a gun at everyone and told employees to put money in a bag he was carrying.
The service manager for the bank screamed upon seeing the masked, armed man. She stated that Jim went straight to the teller line. He then robbed a customer, Bobby, after removing the customer from a teller’s station.
Bobby was speaking to a teller at the counter when suddenly he heard a voice coming from behind him. He turned and saw a man wearing a yellow vest come near him.
Jim, holding a gun in his right hand, struck Bobby across the face and told him to lay on the floor. He then took Bobby's wallet and watch. Bobby said he "threw myself to the ground because I saw that person with a weapon and I was fearful, I felt threatened."
Because Jim had a gun, Bobby "put his head on the ground and stayed there, fearful" until the man left the bank. Bobby stated that he felt like he had to stay on the floor because he was "scared and there was an armed man there and he did not know what was going to happen."
The bank's drive-through teller heard screams. He turned to see a man carrying a black ABC bag and holding a small pistol in his right hand. The drive-through teller testified that the man was using the gun to "direct" tellers to fill the bag with money and that the man was "forceful" and "demanding."
Jim commanded Janet to lay face down on the floor after she put the money in the bag.
Using the attached documents, draft a legal memorandum explaining Jim’s potential abduction charges in relation to Bobby and the Bank tellers. State the elements of the charges and the likelihood of conviction.
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "States that Virginia Code \u00a7 18.2-47 governs the crime of abduction.",
"sources": "Va. Code Ann. _ 18.2-47.Pdf",
"justification": "Law: '\u00a7 18.2-47. Abduction and kidnapping defined; forced labor; punishment. A. Any person who, by force, intimidation or deception, and without legal justification or excuse, seizes, takes, transports, detains or secretes another person with the intent to deprive such other person of his personal liberty or to withhold or conceal him from any person, authority or institution lawfully entitled to his charge, shall be deemed guilty of 'abduction.''",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "States that under Virginia Code \u00a7 18.2-47 any person who 1) by force, intimidation or deception 2) seizes, takes, transports, detains or secretes another person 3) with the intent to deprive such other person of his personal liberty shall be deemed guilty of 'abduction.'",
"sources": "Va. Code Ann. _ 18.2-47.Pdf",
"justification": "Law: '\u00a7 18.2-47. Abduction and kidnapping defined; forced labor; punishment. A. Any person who, by force, intimidation or deception, and without legal justification or excuse, seizes, takes, transports, detains or secretes another person with the intent to deprive such other person of his personal liberty or to withhold or conceal him from any person, authority or institution lawfully entitled to his charge, shall be deemed guilty of 'abduction.' The aspects of 'without legal justification or excuse' and 'withhold or conceal' have not been included because they are not applicable in this analysis.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "States that a defendant can be convicted of abduction in addition to robbery if the victim's detention is separate and apart from the restraint employed in the commission of robbery.",
"sources": "Cardwell v. Commonwealth_248 Va. 501.Pdf",
"justification": "Law: Cardwell v. Commonwealth, 248 Va. 501, 511, 450 S.E.2d 146, 152 (1994) 'A defendant may be convicted of abduction in addition to robbery if the victim's detention ''is separate and apart from, and not merely incidental to, the restraint employed in the commission of [robbery].'' Hoke v. Commonwealth, 237 Va. 303, 311, 377 S.E.2d 595, 600 (quoting Brown v. Commonwealth, 230 Va. 310, 314, 337 S.E.2d 711, 714 (1985)), [***16] cert. denied, 491 U.S. 910 (1989). Thus, to constitute an abduction, separate and apart from a robbery, the victim's detention must be greater than the restraint that is intrinsic in a robbery' (Page 5 of 9.)",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "States that a defendant cannot be convicted of abduction in addition to robbery if the victim's detention is merely incidental to the restraint employed in the commission of robbery.",
"sources": "Cardwell v. Commonwealth_248 Va. 501.Pdf",
"justification": "Law: Cardwell v. Commonwealth, 248 Va. 501, 511, 450 S.E.2d 146, 152 (1994) 'A defendant may be convicted of abduction in addition to robbery if the victim's detention ''is separate and apart from, and not merely incidental to, the restraint employed in the commission of [robbery].'' Hoke v. Commonwealth, 237 Va. 303, 311, 377 S.E.2d 595, 600 (quoting Brown v. Commonwealth, 230 Va. 310, 314, 337 S.E.2d 711, 714 (1985)), [***16] cert. denied, 491 U.S. 910 (1989). Thus, to constitute an abduction, separate and apart from a robbery, the victim's detention must be greater than the restraint that is intrinsic in a robbery' (Page 5 of 9.)",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "States that all of the following factors are central to determining whether an abduction is incidental to another crime: 1) the duration of the detention; 2) whether the detention occurred during the commission of a separate offense; 3) whether the detention which occurred is inherent in the separate offense; and 4) whether the detention created a significant danger to the victim independent of that posed by the separate offense.",
"sources": "Hoyt v. Commonwealth_44 Va. App. 489",
"justification": "Law: Hoyt v. Commonwealth, 44 Va. App. 489, 494, 605 S.E.2d 755, 757 (2004) 'There, the court stated that HN4 'four factors are [***9] central to' determining whether or not an abduction or kidnapping is incidental to another crime. Berry, 604 F.2d at 227. Those factors are: (1) the duration of the detention or asportation; (2) whether the detention or asportation occurred during the commission of a separate offense; (3) whether the detention or asportation which occurred is inherent in the separate offense; and (4) whether the asportation or detention created a significant danger to the victim independent of that posed by the separate offense.' Page 3 of 5 The asportation element is not mentioned in the description because it is not relevant to this analysis.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "Identifies all of the following as elements of robbery: the taking, with intent to steal, of the personal property of another, from his person or in his presence, against his will, and by violence or intimidation.",
"sources": "Pritchard v. Commonwealth_225 Va. 559.Pdf",
"justification": "Law: Pritchard v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 559, 561, 303 S.E.2d 911, 912 (1983) 'Robbery is a common-law crime in Virginia, although its punishment is prescribed by Code \u00a7 18.2-58. It is a crime against the person. Its elements are 'the taking, with intent to steal, of the personal property of another, from his person or in his presence, against his will, by violence or intimidation.'' Page 2 of 3.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "Identifies that Jim told Bobby to lay on the floor after striking Bobby.",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "Prompt: 'Jim, holding a gun in his right hand, struck Bobby across the face and told him to lay on the floor.' This fact is important to identify because it constitutes a detention.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "Identifies that Jim took Bobby's belongings.",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "Prompt: 'He then took Bobby's wallet and watch.' This fact is important to identify because it qualifies Jim's actions as a robbery of Bobby.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 9": {
"description": "Concludes that Jim is likely to be convicted of robbery for the taking of Bobby's belongings from his person by violence.",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "As stated in C6, 'robbery is defined as the taking, with intent to steal, of the personal property of another, from his person or in his presence, against his will, by violence or intimidation.' Jim struck Bobby across the face and told him to lie on the floor. This would qualify as the requisite violence. Jim then took Bobby's wallet and watch. This would qualify as an intent to steal of personal property from Bobby's person. Jim took Bobby's wallet and watch from his person, by the use of violence in striking him across the face. Jim's action would likely qualify as robbery of Bobby.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
6,
7,
8
]
},
"criterion 10": {
"description": "Concludes that Bobby's detention was incidental to the crime of robbery against him.",
"sources": "Prompt; Walker v. Commonwealth_74 Va. App. 475.Pdf",
"justification": "As stated in C3, a defendant can be convicted of abduction in addition to robbery if the victim's detention is separate and apart from the restraint employed in the commission of robbery. In contrast, as stated in C4 a defendant cannot be convicted of abduction in addition to robbery if the victim's detention is merely incidental to the restraint employed in the commission of robbery. Whether an abduction is merely incidental to an offense is determined by the following factors '1) the duration of the detention 2) whether the detention occurred during the commission of a separate offense; 3) whether the detention which occurred is inherent in the separate offense; 4) whether the detention created a significant danger to the victim independent of that posed by the separate offense.' (C5) 1: Duration - Bobby was only made to lay on the ground for as long as the Bank robbery, a short period of time. 2/3: Whether detention occurred during the commission of a separate offense: As stated in C9 the detention occurred during the robbery of Bobby and the force was inherent to the robbery. 4: It is unlikely that a factfinder here would find the detention created a significant danger to the victim independent of that posed by the separate offense. Bobby was merely made to lay on the ground. The facts of this case were nearly identical to Walker v. Commonwealth, see page 2. However in Walker v. Commonwealth the Court stated at page 7 'In the context of a bank robbery, a perpetrator's only reason to interact with customers from whom he does not seek money is to limit their ability to interfere in his or her interactions with the bank tellers from whom he or she does seek money.' Walker v. Commonwealth, 74 Va. App. 475, 493, 870 S.E.2d 328, 337 (2022)' The difference in this case is that Jim did seek money from Bobby. Since Jim committed a robbery against Bobby, the detention is merely incidental to the robbery.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
3,
4,
5,
9,
7,
8
]
},
"criterion 11": {
"description": "Concludes that Jim is not likely to be convicted of abduction pursuant to Virginia Code \u00a7 18.2-47 in relation to Bobby.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Under Virginia Code \u00a7 18.2-47 any person who 1) by force, intimidation or deception 2) seizes, takes, transports, detains or secretes another person 3) with the intent to deprive such other person of his personal liberty shall be deemed guilty of 'abduction.' (C2) However, as stated in C4 a defendant cannot be convicted of abduction in addition to robbery if the victim's detention is merely incidental to the restraint employed in the commission of robbery. We have determined in C10 that Bobby's detention was merely an incident to the robbery committed against him and therefore Jim is not likely to be convicted of abduction pursuant to Virginia Code \u00a7 18.2-47.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
10,
2,
4
]
},
"criterion 12": {
"description": "Concludes that Jim likely committed robbery of the bank.",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "As stated in C6, 'robbery is defined as the taking, with intent to steal, of the personal property of another, from his person or in his presence, against his will, by violence or intimidation.' Jim entered the bank and pointed, 'a gun at everyone and told employees to put money in a bag he was carrying.' This would likely meet the threshold for violence or intimidation. Jim 'was using the gun to 'direct' tellers to fill the bag with money and that the man was 'forceful' and 'demanding.'' By doing so he was using intimidation to take the money from the person of the Bank Tellers. This would likely qualify as robbery under the standard stated in C6.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
6
]
},
"criterion 13": {
"description": "Identifies that Jim commanded the Bank teller (Janet) to lay face down on the floor after she put the money in the bag.",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "Prompt: 'Jim commanded Janet to lay face down on the floor after she put the money in the bag.' This fact is important to identify because it constitutes a 'detention'.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 14": {
"description": "Concludes that the bank teller's (Janet's) detention was incidental to the robbery of the bank.",
"sources": "Prompt; Hoyt v. Commonwealth_44 Va. App. 489",
"justification": "As stated in C3, a defendant can be convicted of abduction in addition to robbery if the victim's detention is separate and apart from the restraint employed in the commission of robbery. In contrast, as stated in C4 a defendant cannot be convicted of abduction in addition to robbery if the victim's detention is merely incidental to the restraint employed in the commission of robbery. Whether an abduction is merely incidental to an offense is determined by the following factors '1) the duration of the detention 2) whether the detention occurred during the commission of a separate offense; 3) whether the detention which occurred is inherent in the separate offense; 4) whether the detention created a significant danger to the victim independent of that posed by the separate offense.' (C5) 1: Duration - Janet was only made to lay on the ground for as long as the Bank robbery, a short period of time. 2/3: Whether detention occurred during the commission of a separate offense: As stated in C12 the detention occurred during the robbery of the bank. The type of force used here is inherent to a robbery. See Hoyt v. Commonwealth (Hoyt pointed the gun at one victim and told them to lay on the floor, the Court ultimately found that this detention was incidental to a robbery) 4: It is unlikely that a factfinder here would find the detention created a significant danger to the victim independent of that posed by the separate offense. Janet was merely made to lay on the ground.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
3,
4,
5,
12,
13
]
},
"criterion 15": {
"description": "Concludes that Jim is not likely to be convicted of abduction pursuant to Virginia Code 18.2-47 in relation to the Bank teller (Janet).",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Under Virginia Code \u00a7 18.2-47 any person who 1) by force, intimidation or deception 2) seizes, takes, transports, detains or secretes another person 3) with the intent to deprive such other person of his personal liberty shall be deemed guilty of 'abduction.' (C2) However, as stated in C4 a defendant cannot be convicted of abduction in addition to robbery if the victim's detention is merely incidental to the restraint employed in the commission of robbery. We have determined in C14 that Janet's detention was merely an incident to the robbery committed against her and therefore Jim is not likely to be convicted of abduction pursuant to Virginia Code \u00a7 18.2-47.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
2,
4,
14
]
}
}
|
documents/1371/1371_Cardwell v. Commonwealth_248 Va. 501.pdf
documents/1371/1371_Hoyt v. Commonwealth_44 Va. App. 489 (1).pdf
documents/1371/1371_Pritchard v. Commonwealth_225 Va. 559.pdf
documents/1371/1371_Walker v. Commonwealth_74 Va. App. 475.pdf
documents/1371/Va. Code Ann. _ 18.2-47.pdf
|
1,382
|
Legal
|
Belgium and Spain are both Contracting Parties to the attached “Convention on Conduct of Fishing Operations in the North Atlantic” (the “Convention”). Authorized officers from Belgium, upon seeing that lines anchored into the sea were not marked, identified and approached a Spanish vessel in order to request information about the vessel. The Spanish officers on board refused to cooperate with the Belgian officers. The Belgian officers then reported the Spanish vessel to a review board and argued that by refusing to cooperate, the Spanish officers on board further violated Spain's obligations under the Convention. Considering the attached document, draft an advisory email to Spain, explaining what the review board will likely decide.
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "Recognizes that Spain is subject to the terms set forth in the Convention.",
"sources": "-Prompt. -Convention on Conduct of Fishing Operations in the North Atlantic",
"justification": "LAW: Convention on Conduct of Fishing Operations in the North Atlantic, p. 2 'The Governments of Belgium, Canada, Denmark, the French Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, the Polish People's Republic, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America, Desiring to ensure good order and conduct on the fishing grounds in the North Atlantic area; Have agreed as follows . . .' PROMPT: 'Belgium and Spain are both Contracting Parties to the attached 'Convention on Conduct of Fishing Operations in the North Atlantic.'' ANALYSIS: A Contracting Party to the Convention signs and agrees to the terms of the Convention. Here, the prompt states that Spain is a Contracting Party to the Convention, so it is subject to its terms.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "Identifies that under Article 5 of the Convention, lines anchored in the sea shall be marked in order to indicate their position.",
"sources": "Convention on Conduct of Fishing Operations in the North Atlantic",
"justification": "LAW: Convention on Conduct of Fishing Operations in the North Atlantic, p.3 Article 5: 'Nets, lines and other gear anchored in the sea and nets or lines which drift in the sea shall be marked in order to indicate their position and extent. The marking shall be in accordance with the provisions of Annex IV to this Convention.'",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "Identifies that under Article 9(5) of the Convention, if an authorized officer has reason to believe that a vessel of any Contracting Party is not complying with the provisions of the convention, he may seek to obtain the necessary information from the vessel.",
"sources": "Convention on Conduct of Fishing Operations in the North Atlantic",
"justification": "LAW: Convention on Conduct of Fishing Operations in the North Atlantic, p. 4 Article 9(5): 'If an authorised officer has reason to believe that a vessel of any Contracting Party is not complying with the provisions of the Convention, he may identify the vessel, seek to obtain the necessary information from the vessel and report. If the matter is sufficiently serious, he may order the vessel to stop and, if it is necessary in order to verify the facts of the case, he may board the vessel for enquiry and report.'",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "Notes that the Belgian officers had reason to believe that the Spanish vessel was not complying with the Convention.",
"sources": "- Prompt. -Convention on Conduct of Fishing Operations in the North Atlantic.",
"justification": "LAW: Per C2/30301, lines anchored in the sea must be marked. PROMPT: 'Authorized officers from Belgium, upon seeing that lines anchored into the sea were not marked, identified and approached a Spanish vessel . . .' ANALYSIS: The Belgian officers saw lines anchored into the sea that were not marked near a Spanish vessel, which is a violation of Article 5 of the Convention.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
2
]
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "Notes that the Belgian officers were acting in accordance with Article 9(5) of the Convention.",
"sources": "- Prompt. -Convention on Conduct of Fishing Operations in the North Atlantic.",
"justification": "LAW: - Per C3/30297, under Article 9(5), if an authorized officer has reason to believe that a contracting party is in violation of the convention, they can seek to obtain necessary information from the vessel. - Per C4/30302, the Belgian officers had reason to believe that the Spanish vessel was not complying with Article 5 of the Convention. PROMPT: 'Authorized officers from Belgium, upon seeing that lines anchored into the sea were not marked, identified and approached a Spanish vessel in order to request information about the vessel.' ANALYSIS: The authorized officers from Belgium had reason to believe that Spain and its vessel were not in compliance with the Convention. Due to this belief, the Belgian officers requested information about the vessel, which is permissible under Article 9(5) of the Convention.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
3,
4
]
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "Identifies that under Article 14(3) of the Convention, a Contracting Party may reserve the right to not apply the terms set forth in Article 9(5).",
"sources": "Convention on Conduct of Fishing Operations in the North Atlantic.",
"justification": "LAW: Convention on Conduct of Fishing Operations in the North Atlantic, p. 6 Article 14(3): 'Any State may, at the time of signature, ratification, approval or accession, make a reservation to paragraphs (5) and (6) of article 9 with respect to one or more of the other Contracting Parties or signatory Governments.'",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "Identifies that Spain reserved the right to not apply the terms set forth in Article 9(5) with respect to all Contracting Parties.",
"sources": "Convention on Conduct of Fishing Operations in the North Atlantic.",
"justification": "LAW: Convention on Conduct of Fishing Operations in the North Atlantic, p. 10 'For the Government of Spain: With reservations in respect of paragraph 5 of article 13 and paragraphs 5 and 6 of article 9, applicable to all Contracting Parties and signatory Governments, as also to those Governments which shall in future accede to the Convention in accordance with article 17 thereof.' ANALYSIS: Because Spain reserved the right not to apply the terms set forth in Article 9(5) with respect to all Contracting Parties, that means that Spain reserved the right to not allow authorized officers of other Contracting Parties to request information about their vessels when the Contracting Party has reason to believe that they are not in compliance with the Convention (Article 9(5)).",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "Concludes that the review board will likely side with Spain.",
"sources": "- Prompt. -Convention on Conduct of Fishing Operations in the North Atlantic.",
"justification": "LAW: - Per C5/30303, the Belgian officers were acting in accordance with Article 9(5). - Per C7/30305, Spain reserved the right to not apply the terms set forth in Article 9(5) with respect to all Contracting Parties. PROMPT: 'Draft an advisory email to Spain, explaining what the review board will likely decide.' ANALYSIS: The review board will likely side with Spain, because Spain reserved the right to not allow authorized officers of other Contracting Parties to request information about their vessels when the Contracting Party has reason to believe that they are not in compliance with the Convention (Article 9(5)). By refusing to cooperate with the Belgian officers, Spain did not violate their obligations under the Convention.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
5,
7
]
}
}
|
documents/1382/Convention on Conduct of Fishing Operations in the North Atlantic.pdf
|
1,398
|
Legal
|
Lily Strum is a potential client with a pending claim for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) Benefits. Without the help of an attorney, Ms. Strum submitted an Initial Application as well as a Request for Reconsideration. The Social Security Administration (SSA) denied both, and Ms. Strum has appealed again. After speaking with a former client, Ms. Strum has contacted the firm in the hopes that the firm will assist with her appeal.
Ms. Strum has provided the firm with her Case File entitled “Lily Strum Case File.pdf.” The contents of her Case File have been shared with the SSA. Ms. Strum has also provided the firm with a recent Medical Opinion Statement from Dr. Michael Jenkins that the SSA has never reviewed. She intends to file it with her appeal. Using the attached documents and applicable law, write an email to the Supervising Partner about Ms. Strum’s case. The email must discuss the five-step sequential evaluation process and determine whether the SSA will find Ms. Strum disabled.
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "Identifies that the first step of the five-step sequential evaluation process is whether the claimant is engaging in substantial gainful activity.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "The first step of the five-step sequential evaluation process is described in Program Operations Manual System (POMS) DI 22001.001. The question at step one is whether 'the claimant [is] engaging in SGA\u2026If yes, the claimant is not disabled\u2026If no, the sequential evaluation continues.' https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0422001001",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "Determines that Ms. Strum has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since 2023.",
"sources": "Lily Strum Case File.pdf",
"justification": "POMS DI 25501.390 states that 'work is 'substantial' if it involves engaging in significant physical or mental activities, or a combination of both. Work is gainful if it is: \u2022 performed for pay or profit; or \u2022 the kind of work usually done for pay or profit, whether or not a profit is realized. Work performed on a part-time basis may be SGA. Generally, we use earnings guidelines to decide if work is SGA.' https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.NSF/lnx/0425501390 The source 'Lily Strum Case File.pdf' confirms that Ms. Strum last engaged in SGA in 2023, as she doesn't have any earnings in 2024 or 2025. In 2023, she earned far more each month than the 2023 SGA monthly amount of $1,470. https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/sga.html Therefore, the answer to step one is no, and the sequential evaluation must continue.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "Identifies that the second step of the five-step sequential evaluation process is whether the claimant has a medically determinable impairment that is both of the following: severe and meets the duration requirement.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "The second step of the five-step sequential evaluation process is described in POMS DI 22001.001. The question at step two is whether the claimant has a 'medically determinable impairment (MDI) (or a combination of MDIs) that is both severe and meets the duration requirement\u2026If no, the claimant is not disabled\u2026If yes, sequential evaluation continues.' https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0422001001",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "Determines that Ms. Strum's medically determinable impairments are severe.",
"sources": "Lily Strum Medical Opinion Statement.pdf",
"justification": "POMS DI 24505.001 provides guidance on the definition of a not severe impairment. 'At the second step of sequential evaluation, it must be determined whether medical evidence establishes a physical or mental impairment or combination of impairments of sufficient severity as to be the basis of a finding of inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity (SGA). When medical evidence establishes only a slight abnormality or a combination of slight abnormalities which would have no more than a minimum effect on an individual's ability to work, such impairment(s) will be found 'not severe,' and a determination of 'not disabled' will be made without consideration of vocational factors. In such an instance, the person's impairment(s) would have no more than a minimal effect on his or her physical or mental ability(ies) to perform basic work activities, so a determination of 'not disabled' would result even if the individual's age, education, or work experience were specifically considered.' https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0424505001 The source 'Lily Strum Medical Opinion Statement.pdf' is written by Ms. Strum's treating physician Dr. Michael Jenkins. With the help of detailed medical findings, this source describes Ms. Strum's medical impairments, which are Crohn's Disease and Uveitis. Dr. Jenkins specifically states that 'These impairments have a major effect on her physical ability to perform basic work activities during an 8-hour workday.' Based on this statement, Ms. Strum's impairment must be classified as 'severe.'",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "Determines that Ms. Strum's medically determinable impairments meet the duration requirement.",
"sources": "Lily Strum Medical Opinion Statement.pdf",
"justification": "As for duration, POMS DI 25505.030 states that 'in most cases in which evidence supports a finding of disability, it will be clear whether the MDI(s) is expected to result in death or has lasted or is expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months from the onset of disability.' https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0425505030 In the source 'Lily Strum Medical Opinion Statement.pdf' Dr. Jenkins confirms that, since September 8, 2023, Ms. Strum has suffered from two MDIs: Crohn's Disease and Uveitis. Ms. Strum's MDIs meet the duration requirement for step 2, as it's currently October 27, 2025. Therefore, she has suffered from her MDIs for a continuous period of more than 2 years. Therefore, the answer to step two is yes, and the sequential evaluation must continue.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "Identifies that the third step of the five-step sequential evaluation process is whether the claimant has an impairment that meets a listing (or is medically equal to a listing in appendix 1).",
"sources": "",
"justification": "The third step of the five-step sequential evaluation process is described in POMS DI 22001.001. The question at step three is whether the claimant has 'an impairment(s) that meets a listing (or is medically equal to a listing in appendix 1)\u2026If yes, the claimant is disabled\u2026If no, the sequential evaluation continues.' https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0422001001",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "Determines that Ms. Strum cannot meet the criteria for Listing 5.06.",
"sources": "Lily Strum Medical Opinion Statement.pdf",
"justification": "There are two listings that might apply to Ms. Strum's MDIs. The first is Listing 5.06 - Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Ms. Strum suffers from Crohn's Disease, which is one of the most common forms of IBD. Listing 5.06 first requires that the IBD be 'documented by endoscopy, biopsy, imaging, or operative findings.' Then, Listing 5.06 requires that the IBD be 'demonstrated by A, B, or C: A. Obstruction of stenotic areas (not adhesions) in the small intestine or colon with proximal dilatation, confirmed by imaging or in surgery, requiring two hospitalizations for intestinal decompression or for surgery, within a consecutive 12-month period and at least 60 days apart. OR B. Two of the following occurring within a consecutive 12-month period and at least 60 days apart: 1. Anemia with hemoglobin of less than 10.0 g/dL, present on at least two evaluations at least 60 days apart; or 2. Serum albumin of 3.0 g/dL or less, present on at least two evaluations at least 60 days apart; or 3. Clinically documented tender abdominal mass palpable on physical examination with abdominal pain or cramping; or 4. Perianal disease with a draining abscess or fistula; or 5. Need for supplemental daily enteral nutrition via a gastrostomy, duodenostomy, or jejunostomy, or daily parenteral nutrition via a central venous catheter. OR C. Repeated complications of IBD (see 5.00D5a), occurring an average of 3 times a year, or once every 4 months, each lasting 2 weeks or more, within a consecutive 12-month period, and marked limitation (see 5.00D5c) in one of the following: 1. Activities of daily living (see 5.00D5d); or 2. Maintaining social functioning (see 5.00D5e); or 3. Completing tasks in a timely manner due to deficiencies in concentration, persistence, or pace (see 5.00D5f). According to the source 'Lily Strum Medical Opinion Statement.pdf,' Ms. Strum's Crohn's Disease has been confirmed by biopsies. However, there is not evidence in this source that Ms. Strum meets the entirety of the criteria for A, B, or C in Listing 5.06.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "Determines that Ms. Strum can meet the criteria for Listing 5.08",
"sources": "Lily Strum Medical Opinion Statement.pdf",
"justification": "The second listing that might apply to Ms. Strum's MDIs is Listing 5.08 - Weight loss due to any digestive disorder. Listing 5.08 can be met if 'despite adherence to prescribed medical treatment,' a claimant has a 'BMI of less than 17.50 calculated on at least two evaluations at least 60 days apart within a consecutive 12-month period.' https://www.ssa.gov/disability/professionals/bluebook/5.00-Digestive-Adult.htm The source 'Lily Strum Medical Opinion Statement.pdf' states that Ms. Strum had a BMI of less than 17.50 during two separate evaluations that were 6 months apart. The first evaluation was on April 1, 2024, when Ms. Strum's BMI was 17.4 during her 4 day hospitalization event. The second evaluation was on October 5, 2024, when Ms. Strum's BMI was 17.1 during her 5 day hospitalization event. Therefore, the answer to step three is yes.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 9": {
"description": "Determines that the Social Security Administration will find Ms. Strum is disabled.",
"sources": "Lily Strum Medical Opinion Statement.pdf",
"justification": "Criterion 5 (31062) provides the Social Security rule that, at step three of the five-step sequential evaluation process, a claimant will be found disabled if they meet a listing. Criterion 7 (31063) establishes that Ms. Strum meets the criteria for Listing 5.08 - Weight loss due to any digestive disorder. Specifically, she had a BMI of less than 17.50 during two separate evaluations at least 60 days apart within a consecutive 12-month period. The first evaluation was on April 1, 2024. The second evaluation was on October 5, 2024. Because Ms. Strum meets the criteria for Listing 5.08, the Social Security Administration will find her disabled at step-three of the five-step sequential evaluation process. The firm should accept Ms. Strum as a client, as her claim for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits will be successful.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
6,
8
]
}
}
|
documents/1398/Lily Strum Case File.pdf
documents/1398/Lily Strum Medical Opinion Statement.pdf
|
1,757
|
Legal
|
Berry met with his attorney in 2015 and executed two wills. Berry wanted to make two so that in case one got lost, he’d still have the other for probate. Berry kept one in his NY apartment and the other at his vacation home in the Hamptons. Berry died in 2025. The executor of Berry’s estate found the will in the NY apartment, but did not find the one previously located in the Hamptons vacation home. Both the wills were identical and left half of Berry’s property to his son Jack and half to his daughter Jill, with nothing left to his other son Michael. Determine who will take Berry’s property based on these facts. Please consider the attached file in discussing your response.
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "States that when a will was last in the possession of the testator and goes missing upon their death, then courts impute a presumption that the will was revoked",
"sources": "In re Lewis.pdf",
"justification": "'That a testator has in fact revoked a will by destruction is strongly presumed where the will, although once possessed by the testator, cannot be found posthumously despite a thorough search.' In re Lewis.pdf In re Lewis is a recent case from 2015 from New York's highest court which dealt with the nuanced issue of duplicate original wills.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "States that when there are multiple original wills, all of the wills must be presented to the court to avoid the presumption of revocation",
"sources": "NY Est Pow & Trusts L \u00a7 3-4.1 (2024) https://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/ept/article-3/part-4/3-4-1/ In re Lewis.pdf Crossman v. Crossman.pdf",
"justification": "'(2) A will may be revoked by: (A) An act of burning, tearing, cutting, cancellation, obliteration, or other mutilation or destruction performed by: (i) The testator' NY Est Pow & Trusts L \u00a7 3-4.1 (2024) 'A will may, of course, be revoked not only by means of a writing executed in the manner of a will, but by the testator's act of destroying it with revocatory intent, which act achieves the revocatory purpose even if there remain will duplicates outstanding.' In re Lewis.pdf 'Where a will is executed in duplicate, both duplicates being executed at the same time, it is not necessary that both should be admitted to probate ; it is proper, however, when one is presented for probate, that the other should be produced in order that it may appear that they are alike in all particulars, and also that the will has not been revoked, as the revocation of one would be the revocation of both.' Crossman v. Crossman.pdf Crossman is one the first NY court of Appeal opinions to deal with the nuanced issue of duplicate original wills and set out the original rule that all duplicates must be presented to the court.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "States that Berry executed two wills.",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "'Berry met with his attorney in 2015 and executed two wills.'",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "States that both wills were last in Berry's possession.",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "The prompt indicates 'Berry kept one in his NY apartment and the other at his vacation home in the Hamptons.'",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
3
]
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "States that the will previously located in the Hampton home went missing.",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "Because the wills were last known to be located in the Testator's properties, they would be deemed last in his possession. 'The executor of Berry's estate found the will in the NY apartment but did not find the one previously located in the Hamptons vacation home.'",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
4
]
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "States that the court will likely find a presumption that Berry revoked his will.",
"sources": "Prompt NY Est Pow & Trusts L \u00a7 3-4.1 (2024) https://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/ept/article-3/part-4/3-4-1/ In re Lewis.pdf Crossman v. Crossman.pdf",
"justification": "'The executor of Berry's estate found the will in the NY apartment but did not find the one previously located in the Hamptons vacation home.' '(2) A will may be revoked by: (A) An act of burning, tearing, cutting, cancellation, obliteration, or other mutilation or destruction performed by: (i) The testator' NY Est Pow & Trusts L \u00a7 3-4.1 (2024) 'A will may, of course, be revoked not only by means of a writing executed in the manner of a will, but by the testator's act of destroying it with revocatory intent, which act achieves the revocatory purpose even if there remain will duplicates outstanding.' In re Lewis.pdf 'Where a will is executed in duplicate, both duplicates being executed at the same time, it is not necessary that both should be admitted to probate ; it is proper, however, when one is presented for probate, that the other should be produced in order that it may appear that they are alike in all particulars, and also that the will has not been revoked, as the revocation of one would be the revocation of both.' Crossman v. Crossman.pdf",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
5
]
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "States that Berry's property would likely pass through intestacy.",
"sources": "NY Est Pow & Trusts L \u00a7 4-1.1 (2024) Learn more https://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/ept/article-4/part-1/4-1-1/",
"justification": "Because Berry's will would likely be presumed revoked, his property would likely need to pass through intestacy law. 'The property of a decedent not disposed of by will shall be distributed as provided in this section.' NY Est Pow & Trusts L \u00a7 4-1.1 (2024)",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
6
]
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "States that each of Berry's issue would receive an equal share of the property under the laws of intestacy.",
"sources": "NY Est Pow & Trusts L \u00a7 4-1.1 (2024) Learn more https://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/ept/article-4/part-1/4-1-1/",
"justification": "'(a) If a decedent is survived by: (3) Issue and no spouse, the whole to the issue, by representation.' NY Est Pow & Trusts L \u00a7 4-1.1 (2024) By representation distribution entails equal distribution to the closest living generation, which are Berry's children.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
7
]
},
"criterion 9": {
"description": "The proponent of the Hamptons will cannot overcome the presumption of revocation.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "When a will that was last in the testator's possession cannot be found after death, it is strongly presumed revoked. Berry's statement that he executed two wills to safeguard his estate is insufficient to rebut this presumption. To overcome it, the proponent would need clear and convincing evidence such as: testimony from credible witnesses that Berry did not destroy the Hamptons will, proof that the will was lost due to circumstances beyond Berry's control, or contemporaneous documents indicating Berry's intent to keep both wills valid. None of these forms of evidence are present. As a result, the presumption of revocation stands, and the Hamptons will likely will not be admitted to probate (In re Lewis, 25 N.Y.3d 456, 2015).",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
}
}
|
documents/1757/Crossman v. . Crossman .pdf
documents/1757/In re Lewis .pdf
|
1,155
|
Medicine
|
Note: For the following clinical scenario, please refer to the most up to date American Academy of Pediatrics Immunizations schedule as of September 17, 2025.
A 13-month-old male presents to the clinic with his new foster mom. He was seen in the clinic last week for a well-child-check, but was unable to get vaccines because his foster mom had not received his shot records from the case worker prior to that appointment. She has his records now, but he is behind on immunizations.
Child’s date of birth - September 1, 2024
Today’s date - October 2, 2025
Immunization record
Hep B #1 - 9/1/24
Hep B #2 - 3/20/25
DTaP #1 - 3/20/25
PEDVAXHIB #1 - 3/20/25
Prevnar #1 - 3/20/25
IPV #1 - 3/20/25
Influenza #1 - 3/20/25
Hep B #3 - 4/24/25
DTaP #2 - 4/24/25
PEDVAXHIB #2 - 4/24/25
Prevnar #2 - 4/24/25
IPV #2 - 4/24/25
Influenza #2 - 4/24/25
DTaP #3 - 9/1/25
PEDVAXHIB #3 - 9/1/25
Prevnar #3 - 9/1/25
IPV #3 - 9/1/25
MMR #1 - 9/1/25
Varicella #1 - 9/1/25
HepA #1 - 9/1/25
Using the attachment "AAP-Immunization-Schedule.pdf", and assuming this child is healthy and has no contraindications to vaccines, what vaccinations should he receive today?
What other vaccines should he receive by the end of this year?
Briefly explain your clinical reasoning.
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "Recommends the child receive a repeat dose of Hepatitis B (Hep B) vaccine today.",
"sources": "AAP-Immunization-Schedule.pdf",
"justification": "This child needs a repeat of dose 3 because the interval of 5 weeks was too short between doses 2 and 3. The recommended interval is 8 weeks. Pages 3 and 9 https://downloads.aap.org/AAP/PDF/AAP-Immunization-Schedule.pdf",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
2,
3
]
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "Recognizes that the child received his third Hepatitis B dose 5 weeks after his second dose.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Based on the prompt, the child received Hep B #3 only 5 weeks after Hep B #2",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "Specifies that the minimum interval between the second and third doses of Hepatitis B should be 8 weeks.",
"sources": "AAP-Immunization-Schedule.pdf",
"justification": "'Minimum interval between doses Dose 2 to Dose 3: 8 weeks.' Page 3 https://downloads.aap.org/AAP/PDF/AAP-Immunization-Schedule.pdf",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "Recommends that the Influenza vaccine should be administered today.",
"sources": "AAP-Immunization-Schedule.pdf",
"justification": "'Age 6 months\u20138 years who have received at least 2 influenza vaccine doses before July 1, 2025: recommendation is 1' dose. Page 9 https://downloads.aap.org/AAP/PDF/AAP-Immunization-Schedule.pdf",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "States the AAP recommends COVID vaccine for children aged 6 months through 23 months.",
"sources": "AAP-Immunization-Schedule.pdf",
"justification": "'COVID-19 vaccination (minimum age: 6 months ... age 6\u201323 months \u2022 Unvaccinated (ie, never received any COVID-19 vaccine doses): \u2022 2 doses Moderna Spikevax 0, 4\u20138 weeks' Page 3 https://downloads.aap.org/AAP/PDF/AAP-Immunization-Schedule.pdf",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "Recommends that the first dose of the COVID vaccine should be administered today.",
"sources": "AAP-Immunization-Schedule.pdf",
"justification": "'COVID-19 vaccination (minimum age: 6 months ... age 6\u201323 months \u2022 Unvaccinated (ie, never received any COVID-19 vaccine doses): \u2022 2 doses Moderna Spikevax 0, 4\u20138 weeks' Page 3 https://downloads.aap.org/AAP/PDF/AAP-Immunization-Schedule.pdf",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
5
]
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "States that the initial COVID vaccine series for an infant is a 2-dose series.",
"sources": "AAP-Immunization-Schedule.pdf",
"justification": "'COVID-19 vaccination (minimum age: 6 months ... age 6\u201323 months \u2022 Unvaccinated (ie, never received any COVID-19 vaccine doses): \u2022 2 doses Moderna Spikevax 0, 4\u20138 weeks' Page 3 https://downloads.aap.org/AAP/PDF/AAP-Immunization-Schedule.pdf",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
6
]
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "Recommends that the second dose of the COVID vaccine should be administered in 4 to 8 weeks from the current visit.",
"sources": "AAP-Immunization-Schedule.pdf",
"justification": "'COVID-19 vaccination (minimum age: 6 months ... age 6\u201323 months \u2022 Unvaccinated (ie, never received any COVID-19 vaccine doses): \u2022 2 doses Moderna Spikevax 0, 4\u20138 weeks' Page 3 https://downloads.aap.org/AAP/PDF/AAP-Immunization-Schedule.pdf",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
7
]
},
"criterion 9": {
"description": "Concludes the child is up to date on other childhood vaccinations.",
"sources": "AAP-Immunization-Schedule.pdf",
"justification": "This child will need IPV #4 and DTaP #4 at future appointments, but is not needing them in a 'catch-up' Schedule. His 3rd dose of Hib and PCV on 9/1/25 were his final doses of these vaccines. He will need Hep A #2 in 6 months, but this also will not be catch-up. Pages 3, 7, 8, 11, and 12. https://downloads.aap.org/AAP/PDF/AAP-Immunization-Schedule.pdf",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
}
}
|
documents/1155/AAP-Immunization-Schedule.pdf
|
1,340
|
Medicine
|
A middle-aged man presents to the ER with abdominal pain and fever. He is admitted under the internist team for sepsis.
36 hours after admission, he is recovering well but reports redness and discomfort in his right eye, for which he has been prescribed antibiotic eye drops.
His clinical presentation and initial hospital course are outlined in the attached document.
What two additional specialties should be consulted in this patient’s care as soon as possible, and why?
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "Recommends consulting infectious disease.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Refer to dependency.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
7
]
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "Identifies that the microbiological features of the blood culture are consistent with Klebsiella pneumoniae.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'K. pneumoniae is lactose fermenting, H2S- and indole-negative, has a positive Voges-Proskauer (VP) reaction, is capable of growth in KCN and using citrate as a sole carbon source, and is incapable of growth at 10\u00baC.' https://www.uptodate.com/contents/microbiology-and-pathogenesis-of-klebsiella-pneumoniae-infection/print#:~:text=%E2%97%8F-,K.,incapable%20of%20growth%20at%2010%C2%BAC. 'K. pneumoniae is a Gram-negative, nonmotile, encapsulated, lactosefermenting, facultative anaerobic, rod-shaped bacterium. It appears as a mucoid lactose fermenter on MacConkey agar. Oxidase-negative, catalase \u2013positive, urease- positive.' https://uomustansiriyah.edu.iq/media/lectures/6/6_2017_10_15!09_25_19_AM.pdf",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "States that the patient likely has Klebsiella pneumoniae bacteremia.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "As noted from the prompt and dependency; the blood cultures are growing what is likely to be K. pneumoniae. 'Bacteremia is the presence of bacteria in the bloodstream.' https://www.msdmanuals.com/professional/infectious-diseases/biology-of-infectious-disease/bacteremia",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
2,
4
]
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "States that the patient's liver abscess is the likely source of the Klebsiella pneumoniae bacteremia.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Refer to dependencies, and below: 'Laboratory tests include a complete blood count with differential, tests for hepatocellular injury (liver enzymes that are usually elevated in half the cases), liver synthetic function tests (Prealbumin and INR), alkaline phosphatase (elevated in around 90% of patients), C-reactive protein, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and blood cultures to rule out bacteremia.' https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK538230/",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
5
]
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "Identifies at least one of the following risk factors of Klebsiella pneumoniae related liver abscess in the patient: Southeast Asian descent or diabetes.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Klebsiella pneumoniae is a prominent etiology in Southeast Asia and is thought to be related to or associated with colorectal cancer there as well.[4][5] It is usually present with no hepatobiliary system disease and is exclusively monomicrobial. It happens in a background of diabetes and is more severe than other forms of bacterial abscesses, possibly because of enhanced virulence factors of the bacteria.' https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK538230/",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "States that the antibiotic regimen should be guided by treatment response.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Treatment duration is determined by clinical as well as radiological response. Early conversion to oral antibiotics has been studied for Klebsiella-related liver abscesses and has been found equally efficacious.44,45 Empiric antibiotics should be directed against organisms typically responsible for causing liver abscess, covering gram-positive cocci, aerobic gram-negative bacilli, and anaerobes' https://www.thieme-connect.com/products/ejournals/pdf/10.1055/s-0043-1760740.pdf 'Pyogenic Liver Abscess - Antibiotics (duration: 2\u20106 weeks)' https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8518335/ 'The medical literature clearly points to third and fourth-generation cephalosporins as the antibiotic treatment of choice in these settings, whereas these hypermucoviscous strains have been found to be uniformly resistant to ampicillin. The treatment regimen duration varies from 2 to 4 weeks with a solitary abscess and at least 6 weeks in the event of multiple abscesses.' https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6346957",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "States that the infectious diseases team should manage the antibiotics.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'The optimal duration of intravenous (IV) antibiotic therapy and subsequent oral therapy remains unclear. The study in Taiwan leads to a nearly standardized treatment with 3 weeks of IV antibiotics followed by 1 or 2 months of oral antibiotics [6]. However, studies in the US demonstrate extremely low mortality with a shorter duration of IV antibiotics (mean of 17.5 days) and oral antibiotics (mean of 13.6 days)' https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2021/8896379#:~:text=Percutaneous%20drainage%20along%20with%20antibiotics,13.6%20days)%20%5B4%5D. 'Patients receiving ID consultations are highly complex, frequently need further treatment after discharge and have a high economic impact.' https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10955003/",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
6
]
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "Recommends consulting ophthalmology.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Refer to dependency.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
12
]
},
"criterion 9": {
"description": "States that Klebsiella pneumoniae bacteremia can cause endogenous endophthalmitis (EE).",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Endogenous endophthalmitis (EE) is a rare but potentially sight-threatening disease with an appreciable mortality rate [1-2]. It is a sequel of hematogenous spread from a distant source that breaches the blood ocular barrier causing infection of the intraocular tissue' https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8310900/#:~:text=Introduction,treatment%20outcomes%20of%20each%20patient. 'Hepatobiliary system was the commonest source of infection (64.3%), followed by respiratory system (28.6%). ' https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7708374/#:~:text=INTRODUCTION,make%20recommendations%20on%20ophthalmological%20screening.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
3
]
},
"criterion 10": {
"description": "States either of the following as a symptom of endogenous Klebsiella endophthalmitis in this patient: eye redness or eye discomfort.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'The majority of cases were unilateral (n=10, 71.4%). The 16 out of 18 eyes (88.9%) were symptomatic before the time of diagnosis. Common presenting symptoms included blurring of vision (87.5%), eye redness (43.8%) and floaters (18.8%). ' 'Presenting ocular symptoms: BOV, redness, pain' https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7708374/#:~:text=INTRODUCTION,make%20recommendations%20on%20ophthalmological%20screening.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 11": {
"description": "States that endogenous Klebsiella endophthalmitis can cause vision loss.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Even with increasing reports and awareness, together with improving intervention for endogenous Klebsiella endophthalmitis, visual outcomes reported by recent studies remain poor with high rates of total loss of vision and evisceration' https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7708374/#:~:text=INTRODUCTION,make%20recommendations%20on%20ophthalmological%20screening.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 12": {
"description": "States that ophthalmological screening can support prompt diagnosis of endogenous Klebsiella endophthalmitis.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Even with increasing reports and awareness, together with improving intervention for endogenous Klebsiella endophthalmitis, visual outcomes reported by recent studies remain poor with high rates of total loss of vision and evisceration' 'Ophthalmological screening has been advocated' https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7708374/#:~:text=INTRODUCTION,make%20recommendations%20on%20ophthalmological%20screening.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
11
]
}
}
|
documents/1340/Attachment 1341.pdf
|
1,344
|
Medicine
|
During an esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), the endoscopist—accompanied by a medical student—describes two gastric ulcers (see attached document) while testing the student’s knowledge of the Forrest classification.
As the scribing doctor, using the Forrest classification, state:
1. The Forrest grade of each ulcer at this point.
2. The individual rebleeding risk and mortality risk associated with each grade.
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "Utilizes the Forrest classification.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'The Forrest Classification was first described in 1974 by J.A. Forrest et al. in TheLancet1. This classification is a widely used classification of ulcer-related upper gastrointestinal bleeding. It was initially developed to unify the description of ulcer bleeding for better communication amongst endoscopists. However, the Forrest Classification is now used as a tool to identify patients who are at an increased risk for bleeding, rebleeding and mortality2\u20134.' https://www.endoscopy-campus.com/en/classifications/forrest-classification/",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "States that the first ulcer is Forrest grade 2b.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Forrest IIb - Adherent clot' https://www.endoscopy-campus.com/en/classifications/forrest-classification/",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1,
3,
12
]
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "Recognizes the endoscopist's description of the first ulcer contains a clot.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Noted from the prompt, and the following: 'By definition adherent clots cannot be washed off with target irrigation.' https://www.bostonscientific.com/content/dam/bostonscientific/endo/portfolio-group/resolution-clip/resolutionclip_casestudy_atlasJensen.pdf",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "Describes a Forrest grade 2b ulcer as an adherent clot.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Forrest IIb - Adherent clot' https://www.endoscopy-campus.com/en/classifications/forrest-classification/",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "States the rebleeding risk of a Forrest grade 2b ulcer is 20 to 30%.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Class 2B Adherent clot Rebleeding 22% Mortality 7%' https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8058080/ 'PUDs with adherent clot (Forrest classification IIb) are at 20-30% risk of rebleeding with a 7% mortality rate. ' https://journals.lww.com/ajg/fulltext/2021/10001/s659_peptic_ulcer_with_adherent_clot_treat_it_or.660.aspx#:~:text=Peptic%20ulcer%20diseases%20(PUD)%20remain,clot%20resistant%20to%20vigorous%20irrigation.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
2
]
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "States the mortality risk of a Forrest grade 2b ulcer is 7%.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Class 2B Adherent clot Rebleeding 22% Mortality 7%' https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8058080/ 'PUDs with adherent clot (Forrest classification IIb) are at 20-30% risk of rebleeding with a 7% mortality rate. ' https://journals.lww.com/ajg/fulltext/2021/10001/s659_peptic_ulcer_with_adherent_clot_treat_it_or.660.aspx#:~:text=Peptic%20ulcer%20diseases%20(PUD)%20remain,clot%20resistant%20to%20vigorous%20irrigation.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
2
]
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "States that the second ulcer is Forrest grade 3.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Forrest III - Clean-based ulcer' https://www.endoscopy-campus.com/en/classifications/forrest-classification/",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
8,
9,
1
]
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "Recognizes the endoscopist's description of the second ulcer having a clean base.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Noted from the prompt.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 9": {
"description": "Describes a Forrest grade 3 ulcer as a clean-based ulcer.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Forrest III - Clean-based ulcer' https://www.endoscopy-campus.com/en/classifications/forrest-classification/",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 10": {
"description": "States the rebleeding risk of a Forrest grade 3 ulcer is 5 to 10%.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Class 3 Clean ulcer base Rebleeding 5% Mortality 2%' https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8058080/ 'Endoscopic therapy is not indicated in cases with Forrest IIc\u2013III ulcers as the risk of rebleeding is relatively low (\u2264 10%)' https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212097113700530",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
7
]
},
"criterion 11": {
"description": "States the mortality risk of a Forrest grade 3 ulcer is 1-2%.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Class 3 Clean ulcer base Rebleeding 5% Mortality 2%' https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8058080/ 'The mortality rates in the other Forrest classifications varied: 5.5% in Forrest Ib,. 3.4% in Forrest IIa, 3.1% in Forrest IIb, 1.7% in Forrest III' https://www.thieme-connect.com/products/ejournals/abstract/10.1055/s-0033-1344884",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
7
]
},
"criterion 12": {
"description": "Recognizes the endoscopist's description that the clot in the first ulcer is resistant to vigorous irrigation.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Noted from the prompt, and the following: 'By definition adherent clots cannot be washed off with target irrigation.' https://www.bostonscientific.com/content/dam/bostonscientific/endo/portfolio-group/resolution-clip/resolutionclip_casestudy_atlasJensen.pdf",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
4
]
}
}
|
documents/1344/Attachment1343.pdf
|
1,345
|
Medicine
|
A patient presents with right lower extremity pain as described in the attached history and physical (1345_historyAndPhysical.pdf).
What is the most specific screening study that may have prevented this patient's current situation? Justify the response.
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "States that the patient' pain is a symptom of limb ischemia.",
"sources": "'1345_historyAndPhysical.pdf'",
"justification": "'The primary symptom of limb ischemia is called ischemic rest pain, which is severe pain in the legs and feet while a person is not moving.' https://www.dignityhealth.org/central-california/locations/stjosephs-stockton/services/heart-and-vascular-institute/heart-and-vascular-conditions/limb-ischemia Attached pdf states: '58M hx of AAA s/p EVAR 1-year ago p/w pain in his right calf and foot'",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "States that the patient's pulselessness is a symptom of limb ischemia.",
"sources": "'1345_historyAndPhysical.pdf'",
"justification": "'Other symptoms [of liimb ischemia] may include: Absent or diminished pulse in the legs or feet' https://www.dignityhealth.org/central-california/locations/stjosephs-stockton/services/heart-and-vascular-institute/heart-and-vascular-conditions/limb-ischemia Attached pdf states: 'Pulse exam femoral/popliteal/PT/DP: left 2/2/2/2; right 2/0/0/0, no Doppler signal identified in RLE DP or PT'. This notes that he doesn't have pulses in the right popliteal, dorsalis pedis (DP), and posterior tibial (PT) pulse.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "States that the patient's discoloration is a symptom of limb ischemia.",
"sources": "'1345_historyAndPhysical.pdf'",
"justification": "'In early acute ischemia, the skin distal to the affected artery will appear very pale. This can progress to a dusky blue color as capillary venodilation occurs.' https://thoracickey.com/history-and-physical-exam-of-acute-limb-ischemia/ Attached pdf states: 'He reports numbness and says its color of his leg from the knee down is 'off' compared to normal'",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "States the patient's symptoms are acute.",
"sources": "'1345_historyAndPhysical.pdf'",
"justification": "Although this patient has had some claudication over the past week, the prompt describes a sudden onset of symptoms that occurred three hours prior. This is consistent with an acute event. Restated, 'Acute conditions are severe and sudden in onset.' https://medlineplus.gov/ency/imagepages/18126.htm Attached pdf states: 'About three hours ago he awoke with severe right lower extremity pain. He was unable to bear weight on it when he tried to get out of bed.'",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "States the patient's acute onset of symptoms are consistent with acute limb ischemia.",
"sources": "'1345_historyAndPhysical.pdf'",
"justification": "Given the acute onset of his symptoms, his clinical picture is consistent with an acute limb ischemia. 'Complete acute ischaemia will lead to tissue necrosis within six hours unless the limb is revascularised and acute ischaemia is defined as symptoms of less than 14 days duration.' https://litfl.com/acute-ischaemic-limb/ Attached pdf states: 'About three hours ago he awoke with severe right lower extremity pain. He was unable to bear weight on it when he tried to get out of bed.'",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
4
]
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "Concludes that the patient has acute limb ischemia.",
"sources": "'1345_historyAndPhysical.pdf'",
"justification": "'The symptoms of [acute limb ischemia] are abrupt with pain, numbness, and coldness of lower limb, and paresthesia, contracture, and irreversible purpura will appear with the exacerbation of ischemia.' https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6326052/",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1,
2,
3,
5
]
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "States that the patient's history of an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) increases his risk for a popliteal artery aneurysm.",
"sources": "'1345_historyAndPhysical.pdf'",
"justification": "'Popliteal artery aneurysm often occurs in men with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA).' https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/popliteal-artery-aneurysm/symptoms-causes/syc-20355432 Attached pdf states: '58M hx of AAA s/p EVAR 1-year ago'",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "States that patient's smoking history increases his risk for a popliteal artery aneurysms.",
"sources": "'1345_historyAndPhysical.pdf'",
"justification": "'Other risk factors for popliteal artery aneurysm include...smoking' https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/popliteal-artery-aneurysm/symptoms-causes/syc-20355432 Attached pdf states: 'Actively smokes 0.5 ppd cigarettes. 40 pack-year hx'",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 9": {
"description": "States that thrombosis is a complication of popliteal artery aneurysms.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'In addition to generating emboli leading to acute limb ischemia, [popliteal] aneurysms are prone to filling with mural thrombus which can occlude the artery. Additionally, as the aneurysm sac enlarges, the resultant turbulent flow causes decreased flow velocities along the luminal flow channel. The result of these altered flow mechanics can lead to clot formation, and ultimately to thrombosis and/or embolism.' https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK541115/",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 10": {
"description": "States that popliteal artery aneurysm thrombosis can present as acute limb ischemia.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Up to 50% of patients may present with acute or chronic ischemia (ALI).' https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK541115/ As an example, one case report describes, '54-year-old male with multiple comorbidities presented to the clinic for evaluation of severe left calf pain (Rutherford Category 4). US arterial duplex revealed 1.7cm popliteal artery aneurysm associated with complete occlusion.' https://scai.org/popliteal-artery-aneurysm-thrombosis",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
9,
6
]
},
"criterion 11": {
"description": "States the patient has claudication.",
"sources": "'1345_historyAndPhysical.pdf'",
"justification": "'Claudication is a pain, cramp or sense of fatigue in a muscle group of the lower extremity related to sustained exercise and relieved promptly by a few minutes of rest while standing evenly on both feet.' https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK235/ Attached pdf states: '58M hx of AAA s/p EVAR 1-year ago p/w pain in his right calf and foot. He noticed some discomfort while walking approximately 1 week ago'",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 12": {
"description": "States that the patient's claudication can be a symptom of popliteal artery aneurysm thrombosis.",
"sources": "'1345_historyAndPhysical.pdf'",
"justification": "'Patients [with popliteal artery aneurysm thrombosis] may describe a recent history of worsening claudication, ulceration, rest-pain or blue toe syndrome.' https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK541115/ Attached pdf states: '58M hx of AAA s/p EVAR 1-year ago p/w pain in his right calf and foot. He noticed some discomfort while walking approximately 1 week ago'",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
11
]
},
"criterion 13": {
"description": "States that the patient's distribution of symptoms is consistent with a popliteal artery thrombosis.",
"sources": "'1345_historyAndPhysical.pdf'",
"justification": "The popliteal artery is at the level of the knee. Occlusion via a blood clot at this level would affect all distal tissue including the calf and the foot which is consistent with this patient's presentation. The case report cited in criterion 10 describes a patient with popliteal artery thrombosis who presented with calf pain: https://scai.org/popliteal-artery-aneurysm-thrombosis Additionally, the literature indicates that in popliteal thrombosis, 'the popliteal mass may not be pulsatile'. In this case it is noted that the patient's right popliteal pulse is 0. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK541115/#:~:text=Epidemiology,Go%20to: Attached pdf: 'He reports numbness and says its color of his leg from the knee down is 'off' compared to normal. 'Pulse exam femoral/popliteal/PT/DP: left 2/2/2/2; right 2/0/0/0, no Doppler signal identified in RLE DP or PT'. This notes that he doesn't have pulses in the right popliteal, dorsalis pedis (DP), and posterior tibial (PT) pulse.'",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 14": {
"description": "States that the patient's imaging makes an embolic source proximal to the popliteal artery less likely.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "The patient was documented to be in sinus rhythm recently, making emboli from the heart less likely. Furthermore, a recent CT scan did not demonstrate any thrombus on the stent graft, or atherosclerosis of the aorta or iliacs. The femoral pulse is palpable with good flow on ultrasound, making the popliteal the most likely area of concern. Additionally, one study on limb complications after endovascular aortic repair reported zero embolic complications after 30 days, compared to the fact that 'abdominal aortic aneurysms are found concurrently [to popliteal aneurysms] in 36 to 51% of patients'. https://www.jvascsurg.org/article/S0741-5214(04)00951-6/pdf https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK541115/#:~:text=Epidemiology,Go%20to:",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 15": {
"description": "Concludes that the patient's acute limb ischemia was most likely caused by a popliteal artery aneurysm thrombosis.",
"sources": "'1345_historyAndPhysical.pdf'",
"justification": "As outlined and cited in the prior criteria, the patient presented with acute limb ischemia. He was at high risk for popliteal artery aneurysm due to his history of abdominal aortic aneurysm and smoking, extracted from the H&P. The risk of popliteal aneurysms is thrombosis. When they thrombose, they can cause acute limb ischemia in the calf and foot, with some subtle indicators such as worsening claudication in the recent term. The imaging and location of symptoms make popliteal thrombosis more likely than aortoiliac embolism. This article provides a summary of the condition: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK541115/",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
7,
8,
10,
12,
13,
14
]
},
"criterion 16": {
"description": "States that popliteal artery aneurysms can be screened for by Duplex ultrasound.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Duplex ultrasound (DUS) has been shown to be highly sensitive and specific for the detection of PAAs, with a reported accuracy close to 100%' https://www.jvascsurg.org/article/S0741-5214(21)00680-7/fulltext",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
15
]
},
"criterion 17": {
"description": "States that Duplex ultrasound is more specific than ankle-brachial index for aneurysm detection.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'The Ankle Brachial Index (ABI) is the systolic pressure at the ankle, divided by the systolic pressure at the arm. It has been shown to be a specific and sensitive metric for the diagnosis of Peripheral Arterial Disease (PAD).' https://med.stanford.edu/stanfordmedicine25/the25/ankle-brachial-index.html In other words, ABI can detect if there is disease somewhere in the lower extremity. However, mechanistically it does not provide information about the specific etiology of the disease. Ultrasound, however, provides an image of the vessel that can be used to determine if an aneurysm is present. 'Duplex ultrasound (DUS) has been shown to be highly sensitive and specific for the detection of PAAs, with a reported accuracy close to 100%' https://www.jvascsurg.org/article/S0741-5214(21)00680-7/fulltext",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
16
]
},
"criterion 18": {
"description": "States that this patient had a 7.1 cm abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) prior to repair.",
"sources": "'1345_historyAndPhysical.pdf'",
"justification": "Past surgical history from the attachment states, 'Endovascular AAA repair Oct 2023 for 7.1 cm aneurysm, bilateral groin access, stent graft placed infrarenal'",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 19": {
"description": "Classifies this patient's AAA as large.",
"sources": "'1345_historyAndPhysical.pdf'",
"justification": "'Small abdominal aortic aneurysms [are those that are] 3-5 cm [in diameter].' And, 'The treatment of unruptured AAA is recommended when the aneurysm diameter reaches 5.5 cm.' https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK470237/ Therefore, a 7.1 cm AAA would be considered large.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
18
]
},
"criterion 20": {
"description": "States that screening for popliteal artery aneurysms is indicated for patients with large AAAs.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "From the 2022 Society for Vascular Surgery Guidelines for Popliteal Artery Aneurysms, 'Men with larger AAAs may benefit from [Duplex ultrasound] screening of their popliteal arteries to detect a [popliteal artery aneurysm].' https://www.jvascsurg.org/article/S0741-5214(21)00680-7/fulltext",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
19
]
},
"criterion 21": {
"description": "States that early detection of popliteal artery aneurysms can prevent complications such as thrombosis.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'The primary concern with PAA is the development of thrombotic and embolic complications. Elective intervention of PAAs has been shown to be associated with superior outcomes in terms of limb salvage compared with PAAs treated emergently.' https://www.jvascsurg.org/article/S0741-5214(21)00680-7/fulltext",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
20
]
},
"criterion 22": {
"description": "Concludes that a Duplex ultrasound of the popliteal arteries may have prevented this patient's acute limb ischemia.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "This patient's acute limb ischemia was most likely due to popliteal artery aneurysm thrombosis (Criterion 14). The most specific screening test for popliteal aneurysm is a Duplex ultrasound (criteria 15 & 16). This patient's previously large AAA (criteria 17 & 18) made him eligible for popliteal aneurysm screening (criterion 19). Had his popliteal aneurysm been identified earlier, intervention could have been pursued to prevent the thrombosis and limb ischemia he has now (criterion 20).",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
15,
21,
16,
17
]
}
}
|
documents/1345/1345_historyAndPhysical.pdf
|
1,352
|
Medicine
|
A patient recently underwent a prostate MRI that is still pending formal reporting. He presents today feeling anxious and wishes to understand his likelihood of prostate cancer based on the preliminary imaging description.
See attached document for the MRI findings.
What is the score under the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2.1 (PI-RADS v2.1) for this lesion? Explain your reasoning.
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "Utilizes the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System, version 2.1 (PI-RADS v2.1).",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) is a structured reporting scheme for multiparametric prostate MRI in the evaluation of suspected prostate cancer in treatment naive prostate glands. This article reflects version 2.1 (v2.1), published in 2019 and developed by an internationally representative group involving the American College of Radiology (ACR), European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR), and AdMeTech Foundation 6.' https://radiopaedia.org/articles/prostate-imaging-reporting-and-data-system-pi-rads-2 https://edge.sitecorecloud.io/americancoldf5f-acrorgf92a-productioncb02-3650/media/ACR/Files/RADS/PI-RADS/PIRADS-Revisions.pdf",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "States that the assessment is for a lesion located in the peripheral zone of the prostate.",
"sources": "MRI findings_task 1352.pdf",
"justification": "Noted from the attachment.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "States that, for peripheral zone lesions, the dominant sequence for assigning the overall PI-RADS v2.1 score is diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI).",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'For peripheral zone lesions, the overall PI-RADS assessment usually follows the DWI score, but a score of 3 can be upgraded by the presence of dynamic contrast enhancement.' https://radiopaedia.org/articles/prostate-imaging-reporting-and-data-system-pi-rads-2",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1,
2
]
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "Defines a high b-value on DWI as \u22651,400 sec/mm\u00b2.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'A high b-value (\u22651,400 sec/mm2) image set is also mandatory ' https://edge.sitecorecloud.io/americancoldf5f-acrorgf92a-productioncb02-3650/media/ACR/Files/RADS/PI-RADS/PIRADS-Revisions.pdf",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "Recognizes that a high b-value was used for this patient's DWI sequence.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Noted from the prompt as a b-value of 1,500 sec/mm2 was used in DWI.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
4
]
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "Identifies that the patient demonstrates a focal moderate hyperintensity on high b-value DWI.",
"sources": "MRI findings_task 1352.pdf",
"justification": "Noted from the attachment.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
5
]
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "Mentions a focal moderate hyperintensity on high b-value DWI receives a DWI score of 3 under PI-RADS v2.1.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) score Transition zone or peripheral zone 3: focal (discrete and different from background), mild/moderate hypointensity on ADC and/or mild/moderate hyperintensity on high b-value DWI; may be markedly hypointense on ADC or markedly hyperintense on high b-value DWI, but not both' https://radiopaedia.org/articles/prostate-imaging-reporting-and-data-system-pi-rads-2",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
3,
6
]
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "States that permeability magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is equivalent to dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MR perfusion, sometimes also referred to as permeability MRI, is one of the main MRI perfusion techniques which calculates perfusion parameters by evaluating T1 shortening induced by a gadolinium-based contrast bolus passing through tissue. ' https://radiopaedia.org/articles/dynamic-contrast-enhanced-dce-mr-perfusion-1",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 9": {
"description": "States that focal early enhancement corresponding to the DWI lesion indicates a positive DCE score.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'DCE Score Peripheral Zone (PZ) or Transition Zone (TZ) (+) focal, and; earlier than or contemporaneously with enhancement of adjacent normal prostatic tissues, and; corresponds to suspicious finding on T2W and/or DWI' https://edge.sitecorecloud.io/americancoldf5f-acrorgf92a-productioncb02-3650/media/ACR/Files/RADS/PI-RADS/PIRADS-Revisions.pdf 'Reporting DCE: focal early enhancement, positive' https://edge.sitecorecloud.io/americancoldf5f-acrorgf92a-productioncb02-3650/media/ACR/Files/RADS/PI-RADS/PIRADS-Report-Template.pdf",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 10": {
"description": "Identifies the patient has focal early enhancement corresponding to the DWI lesion on permeability MRI.",
"sources": "MRI findings_task 1352.pdf",
"justification": "Prompt: 'Permeability MRI: Focal early enhancement noted at the same location of DWI lesion'",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 11": {
"description": "Recognizes that the patient has a positive DCE score.",
"sources": "MRI findings_task 1352.pdf",
"justification": "Noted from the attachment & dependency.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
8,
9,
10
]
},
"criterion 12": {
"description": "States that a positive DCE upgrades a DWI score of 3 to form an overall PI-RADS v2.1 score of 4.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'For peripheral zone lesions with DWI score of 3, the presence of dynamic contrast enhancement is used to upgrade the overall PI-RADS assessment category to 4.' https://radiopaedia.org/articles/prostate-imaging-reporting-and-data-system-pi-rads-2",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
7,
11
]
},
"criterion 13": {
"description": "States that the patient's DWI score under PI-RADS v2.1 is 4.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'For peripheral zone lesions with DWI score of 3, the presence of dynamic contrast enhancement is used to upgrade the overall PI-RADS assessment category to 4.' https://radiopaedia.org/articles/prostate-imaging-reporting-and-data-system-pi-rads-2",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
12
]
},
"criterion 14": {
"description": "States that a PI-RADS v2.1 score of 4 puts the patient at high risk of a clinically significant prostate cancer.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'PI-RADS 4: high (clinically significant cancer is likely to be present)' https://radiopaedia.org/articles/prostate-imaging-reporting-and-data-system-pi-rads-2",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
13
]
}
}
|
documents/1352/MRI findings_task 1352.pdf
|
1,368
|
Medicine
|
A 75-year-old male patient presents to the primary care clinic for new onset skin dryness and pruritus. Please refer to the attached patient case to answer the following questions:
- What is the most likely treatment the patient is referring to? Explain your reasoning.
- List 2 treatments that can be offered in this case to manage his symptoms following this treatment.
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "States that the patient's description of the treatment being produced by bacteria is consistent with porphyrins.",
"sources": "Patient info.pdf",
"justification": "The PDF states the following: He can't remember the name of the topical treatment he received but remembers the dermatologist telling him that it can be produced by bacteria and can also be used for acne treatment. 'The bacteria in acne release porphyrins.' https://dermnetnz.org/topics/blue-light-acne-treatment",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "States that aminolevulinic acid (ALA) is an early porphyrin precursor.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "States that aminolevulinic acid or methyl aminolevulinate are early porphyrin precursors. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK617062/",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1
]
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "States that ALA is a photosensitizer.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Excess porphyrin in the skin results in photosensitivity.' https://dermnetnz.org/topics/porphyria-cutanea-tarda",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
2
]
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "States that ALA is used in the context of photodynamic therapy (PDT).",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Among the most commonly used photosensitizers in dermatologic applications are 5-ALA and MAL, both of which are precursors to protoporphyrin IX, a potent endogenous photosensitizer.' https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK617062/",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
3
]
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "States the patient has pre-cancerous skin lesions.",
"sources": "Patient info.pdf",
"justification": "The PDF states the following: He had seen a dermatologist to treat 'pre-cancerous lesions' on his scalp and arms",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "States that PDT is used to treat pre-cancerous skin lesions.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'For patients presenting with multiple lesions across broad, photodamaged areas, PDT has emerged as a particularly suitable modality.' https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK617062/",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
5
]
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "States that the patient's description of the treatment also being used for acne is consistent with PDT.",
"sources": "Patient info.pdf",
"justification": "The PDF states the following: He can't remember the name of the topical treatment he received but remembers the dermatologist telling him that it can be produced by bacteria and can also be used for acne treatment. 'Additionally, PDT has also been used due to its antimicrobial and anti-inflammatory properties in the treatment of acne vulgaris.' https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK617062/",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
6
]
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "Concludes that ALA is one of the topical treatment the patient is likely using.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Among the most commonly used photosensitizers in dermatologic applications are 5-ALA and MAL, both of which are precursors to protoporphyrin IX, a potent endogenous photosensitizer.' https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK617062/",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
4,
2,
6
]
},
"criterion 9": {
"description": "Lists erythema as a common side effect of PDT.",
"sources": "Patient info.pdf",
"justification": "The PDF states the following: His skin initially became painful and red and it is now 'peeling off' and very pruritic 'In addition to temporary pain (see 'Pain control measures' below), a localized, erythematous reaction can typically be expected for four to seven days and may be accompanied by a tingling or burning sensation, edema, minute vesicles, or crusting. After the erythematous reaction, the patient may experience exfoliation and pruritus of the skin for up to a week' https://www.uptodate.com/contents/photodynamic-therapy",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
6
]
},
"criterion 10": {
"description": "Lists desquamation as a common side effect of PDT.",
"sources": "Patient info.pdf",
"justification": "The PDF states the following: His skin initially became painful and red and it is now 'peeling off' and very pruritic 'In addition to temporary pain (see 'Pain control measures' below), a localized, erythematous reaction can typically be expected for four to seven days and may be accompanied by a tingling or burning sensation, edema, minute vesicles, or crusting. After the erythematous reaction, the patient may experience exfoliation and pruritus of the skin for up to a week' https://www.uptodate.com/contents/photodynamic-therapy",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
6
]
},
"criterion 11": {
"description": "Lists two of the following as appropriate PDT aftercare treatments: cool compresses, corticosteroids, or bland emollients.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'...should be treated with soothing, bland emollients.' 'If the skin is irritated or pruritic, a topical corticosteroid ointment can be used once or twice daily for a few days.' 'Cool compresses can be applied for comfort as needed.' https://www.uptodate.com/contents/photodynamic-therapy",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
9,
10
]
},
"criterion 12": {
"description": "States that methyl aminolevulinate (MAL) is an early porphyrin precursor.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "States that aminolevulinic acid or methyl aminolevulinate are early porphyrin precursors. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK617062/",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1
]
},
"criterion 13": {
"description": "States that MAL is a photosensitizer.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Excess porphyrin in the skin results in photosensitivity.' https://dermnetnz.org/topics/porphyria-cutanea-tarda",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
12
]
},
"criterion 14": {
"description": "States that MAL is used in the context of photodynamic therapy (PDT).",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Among the most commonly used photosensitizers in dermatologic applications are 5-ALA and MAL, both of which are precursors to protoporphyrin IX, a potent endogenous photosensitizer.' https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK617062/",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
13
]
},
"criterion 15": {
"description": "Concludes that MAL is one of the topical treatment the patient is likely using.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Among the most commonly used photosensitizers in dermatologic applications are 5-ALA and MAL, both of which are precursors to protoporphyrin IX, a potent endogenous photosensitizer.' https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK617062/",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
14,
12,
6
]
}
}
|
documents/1368/Patient info.pdf
|
1,354
|
Medicine
|
An 18-year-old male presents with chronic fatigue, muscle cramps, and intermittent perioral tingling one year after undergoing total thyroidectomy for papillary thyroid carcinoma. Please refer to the attached document for information on the patient's physical exam.
Despite taking high-dose oral calcium (4,000 mg/day) and calcitriol (0.75 mcg/day), his serum calcium levels continue to fluctuate between 7.1 and 8.0 mg/dL (normal is between 8.5 and 10.2 mg/dL). A 24-hour urine collection shows hypercalciuria (320 mg/day).
He previously trialed recombinant human parathyroid hormone (rhPTH) but discontinued it due to marked swings in his calcium levels. He now expresses frustration with the pill burden and its impact on his quality of life, along with the devastating symptoms.
Question:
What is the next best step in managing this patient’s chronic hypoparathyroidism? Explain your reasoning.
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "Recognizes that the patient has chronic post-surgical hypoparathyroidism.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "This is directly stated in the prompt.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "States that recombinant human parathyroid hormone (rhPTH) is short-acting.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "rhPTH has a very short half-life. 'The first peak appears in 5\u201330 min, and the second, frequently smaller peak, appears in 1\u20132 h. The apparent terminal half-life of rhPTH (1\u201384) is 3.02 h' https://link.springer.com/rwe/10.1007/978-981-99-9283-6_2335#:~:text=The%20first%20peak%20appears%20in,pain%20in%20extremities%2C%20and%20sinusitis.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "States that the correct next step in management is to start palopegteriparatide (Yorvipath).",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Due to dependencies and below: This is the indication for palopegteriparatide, according to the manufacturer. 'YORVIPATH is a parathyroid hormone analog (PTH(1-34)) indicated for the treatment of hypoparathyroidism in adults' https://ascendispharma.us/products/pi/yorvipath/yorvipath_pi.pdf",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
6,
4,
9,
11,
16,
18
]
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "States that palopegteriparatide is approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in hypoparathyroidism.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "This is what palopegteriparatide is approved for according to the manufacturer. 'YORVIPATH is a parathyroid hormone analog (PTH(1-34)) indicated for the treatment of hypoparathyroidism in adults' https://ascendispharma.us/products/pi/yorvipath/yorvipath_pi.pdf",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1
]
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "States that the long-acting nature of palopegteriparatide maintains more stable serum calcium levels.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "The medication replaces the patient's missing PTH, so it addresses the underlying root cause of the patient's condition. 'At physiological conditions, palopegteriparatide releases PTH(1-34) to maintain a continuous systemic exposure. Endogenous PTH maintains extracellular calcium and phosphate homeostasis by increasing serum calcium and decreasing serum phosphate.' https://ascendispharma.us/products/pi/yorvipath/yorvipath_pi.pdf",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
8
]
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "States that palopegteriparatide reduces the patient's pill burden.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "The medication is an injection, so it does not require any additional pills. 'YORVIPATH\u00ae (palopegteriparatide) injection, for subcutaneous use' https://ascendispharma.us/products/pi/yorvipath/yorvipath_pi.pdf",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
7
]
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "States that palopegteriparatide can maintain serum calcium levels without supplementation.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "This has been supported by clinical studies. 'Recently, palopegteriparatide (4) has demonstrated the ability to maintain stable serum calcium levels, despite the discontinuation of calcium and active vitamin D supplementation.' https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article-abstract/110/11/e3899/7965149#:~:text=Regarding%20serum%20calcium%20and%20phosphate,and%20active%20vitamin%20D%20supplementation.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
5
]
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "States that palopegteriparatide is long-acting.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Paopegteriparatide has a long half-life, according to the manufacturer. 'The apparent half-life of PTH released from palopegteriparatide is approximately 60 hours' https://ascendispharma.us/products/pi/yorvipath/yorvipath_pi.pdf",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 9": {
"description": "States that thiazide diuretics add to the patient's pill burden.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Thiazide diuretics are pills that add to the patient's pill burden. 'HCTZ: Initial dose: 25 mg orally once daily. Maintenance dose: May increase to 50 mg orally daily, as a single or 2 divided doses.' https://www.drugs.com/dosage/hydrochlorothiazide.html",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
10
]
},
"criterion 10": {
"description": "States that the patient may still need calcium supplementation while on thiazide diuretics.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Thiazide diuretics address urinary calcium absorption and excretion. They do not replace PTH, so the patient may still require calcium supplementation. 'data show that thiazide diuretics significantly lower calciuria in patients with hypoparathyroidism, but they do not impact serum calcium' https://www.endocrine-abstracts.org/ea/0099/ea0099oc13.5",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 11": {
"description": "States that rhPTH has been discontinued globally.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "This has been stated by the manufacturer. 'Takeda (TSE:4502/NYSE:TAK) today announced its decision, made on October 3, 2022, that it will discontinue manufacturing NATPAR\u00ae/NATPARA\u00ae (parathyroid hormone) for Injection1 globally at the end of 2024 due to unresolved supply issues.' https://www.takeda.com/en-us/newsroom/statements/2022/takeda-to-discontinue-manufacturing-of-natpar-natpara/",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 12": {
"description": "States that serum calcium levels peak after an rhPTH dose.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "This has been supported by clinical studies. 'Teriparatide transiently increases serum calcium, with the maximal effect observed at approximately 4.25 h (median increase, 0.4 mg/dl or 0.1 mM) followed by a decline to predose levels before the next teriparatide dose is administered 24 h later.' https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2978887/",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
2
]
},
"criterion 13": {
"description": "States that serum calcium levels decline after they peak.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "This has been supported by clinical studies. 'Teriparatide transiently increases serum calcium, with the maximal effect observed at approximately 4.25 h (median increase, 0.4 mg/dl or 0.1 mM) followed by a decline to predose levels before the next teriparatide dose is administered 24 h later.' https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2978887/",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
2
]
},
"criterion 14": {
"description": "States that the short-acting nature of rhPTH causes unstable serum calcium levels.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Although the pharmacodynamic half-life is longer than the pharmacokinetic half-life, this is a likely explanation for the REPLACE study not showing a significant reduction in 24-hour renal calcium excretion in response to once-a-day treatment with rhPTH(1-84). Moreover, treatment has been shown to cause fluctuations in calcium levels, with an increase immediately after an injection followed by a decline during the last part of a 24-hour treatment period.' https://www.e-enm.org/journal/view.php?doi=10.3803/EnM.2024.1916",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
12,
13
]
},
"criterion 15": {
"description": "States that unstable serum calcium levels require frequent calcium supplementation.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "If serum calcium levels are not appropriate, supplementation may be required. 'The treatment of hypercalcemia or hypocalcemia focuses on correcting the underlying disorder, which is usually causing a disturbance in calcium homeostasis. In extreme circumstances, calcium supplementation or calciuresis can correct for severe derangements in calcium levels.' https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK482128/",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
14
]
},
"criterion 16": {
"description": "Recognizes that the patient is experiencing pill burden from frequent calcium supplementation while on rhPTH.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "This is directly stated in the prompt.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
15
]
},
"criterion 17": {
"description": "Recognizes that the patient has clinical features of hypocalcemia.",
"sources": "1371 Physical Exam.pdf",
"justification": "Noted from the examination findings from '1371 Physical Exam.pdf': 'Neuromuscular: Positive Chvostek and Trousseau signs; mild fine tremor; no focal weakness. Skin/Hair/Nails: Dry, cool skin; brittle nails; coarse hair. Extremities: No edema; capillary refill < 2 s; carpopedal spasm with cuff inflation.' Also from the symptoms stated on the prompt.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 18": {
"description": "States that unstable serum calcium levels while on rhPTH manifests as symptoms in the patient.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "This is directly stated in the prompt.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
17,
14
]
}
}
|
documents/1354/1371 Physical Exam.pdf
|
1,389
|
Medicine
|
A 66-year-old man with history of hypertension presents to clinic for follow up after a witnessed syncopal episode while gardening 1 week ago. He describes feeling lightheaded before losing consciousness for approximately 15 seconds, according to his son. He recovered quickly without confusion, urinary or bowel incontinence afterwards. His son did not witness any abnormal movements or jerking motion. There was no head trauma. He recently recovered from an episode of gastroenteritis but is now tolerating normal oral intake. The patient denies any additional preceding symptoms and denies history of chest pain, palpitations, or dyspnea.
Please further refer to the attached document (Patient Infor.pdf) to answer the following questions:
What is the most appropriate immediate next step(s) in the management of this patient and why?
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "States that the patient's electrocardiogram (ECG) axis is at 120\u00b0.",
"sources": "Patient Info.pdf",
"justification": "From the Patient Infor.pdf: 'ECG: Unchanged from prior ECG. Normal sinus rhythm, HR 70 bpm, axis at 120\u00b0, rS pattern in leads I and aVL, qR pattern in leads III and aVF, right bundle branch block; no ischemic changes.'",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "States that the patient's ECG has rS pattern in lead I.",
"sources": "Patient Info.pdf",
"justification": "From the Patient Infor.pdf: 'ECG: Unchanged from prior ECG. Normal sinus rhythm, HR 70 bpm, axis at 120\u00b0, rS pattern in leads I and aVL, qR pattern in leads III and aVF, right bundle branch block; no ischemic changes.'",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "States that the patient's ECG has rS pattern in lead aVL.",
"sources": "Patient Info.pdf",
"justification": "From the Patient Infor.pdf: 'ECG: Unchanged from prior ECG. Normal sinus rhythm, HR 70 bpm, axis at 120\u00b0, rS pattern in leads I and aVL, qR pattern in leads III and aVF, right bundle branch block; no ischemic changes.'",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "States that the patient's ECG has qR pattern in lead III.",
"sources": "Patient Info.pdf",
"justification": "From the Patient Infor.pdf: 'ECG: Unchanged from prior ECG. Normal sinus rhythm, HR 70 bpm, axis at 120\u00b0, rS pattern in leads I and aVL, qR pattern in leads III and aVF, right bundle branch block; no ischemic changes.'",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "States that the patient's ECG has qR pattern in lead aVF.",
"sources": "Patient Info.pdf",
"justification": "From the Patient Infor.pdf: 'ECG: Unchanged from prior ECG. Normal sinus rhythm, HR 70 bpm, axis at 120\u00b0, rS pattern in leads I and aVL, qR pattern in leads III and aVF, right bundle branch block; no ischemic changes.'",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "States that the patient has left posterior fascicular block.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "The ECG features of left posterior fascicular block include: \u2022 Frontal plane axis between 90\u00b0 and 180\u00b0 in adults \u2022 rS pattern in leads I and aVL \u2022 qR pattern in leads III and aVF https://www.uptodate.com/contents/left-posterior-fascicular-block",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1,
2,
3,
5,
4
]
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "States that the patient has right bundle branch block.",
"sources": "Patient Info.pdf",
"justification": "From the Patient Infor.pdf: 'ECG: Unchanged from prior ECG. Normal sinus rhythm, HR 70 bpm, axis at 120\u00b0, rS pattern in leads I and aVL, qR pattern in leads III and aVF, right bundle branch block; no ischemic changes.'",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "Identifies that the patient has bifasicular block.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "The combination of right bundle branch block with a left posterior fascicular block is diagnostic of a bifascicular block. 'Bifascicular block may present with one of three potential appearances on the surface electrocardiogram (ECG): \u2022 Right bundle branch block (RBBB) and left anterior fascicular block (LAFB) \u2022 RBBB and left posterior fascicular block (LPFB) \u2022 LAFB and LPFB (ie, left bundle branch block [LBBB])' https://www.uptodate.com/contents/chronic-bifascicular-blocks",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
6,
7
]
},
"criterion 9": {
"description": "States that the patient is at risk for complete or high-grade heart block.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'For patients who present with presyncope or syncope and are noted to have bifascicular block on ECG, additional monitoring and evaluation are required, as such patients may have intermittent complete heart block that results in hemodynamic instability leading to their symptoms of presyncope or syncope.' 'Among patients with syncope or other symptoms at baseline, the likelihood of progression to symptomatic high-grade heart block appears high.' https://www.uptodate.com/contents/chronic-bifascicular-blocks",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
8
]
},
"criterion 10": {
"description": "Identifies complete or high-grade heart block as a cause of the patient's syncope.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "From the prompt: 'A 66-year-old man with history of hypertension presents to clinic for follow up after a witnessed syncopal episode while gardening 1 week ago.' 'The most common arrhythmic causes of syncope include: \u2022 AV block \u2013 High-grade (ie, complete or Mobitz type II second-degree) AV block may trigger syncope (an event previously termed a Stokes-Adams attack).' https://www.uptodate.com/contents/syncope-in-adults-epidemiology-pathogenesis-and-etiologies",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
9
]
},
"criterion 11": {
"description": "Recommends inpatient admission for continuous ECG monitoring.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'For patients who present with presyncope or syncope and are noted to have bifascicular block on ECG, additional monitoring and evaluation are required, as such patients may have intermittent complete heart block that results in hemodynamic instability leading to their symptoms of presyncope or syncope. In those patients with syncope or presyncope who have suspected advanced conduction disease, we perform continuous ECG monitoring for 24 to 48 hours, usually in an inpatient setting, to monitor for high-grade AV block that would require a permanent pacemaker.' https://www.uptodate.com/contents/chronic-bifascicular-blocks",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
9
]
},
"criterion 12": {
"description": "Recommends an echocardiogram.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Additionally, cardiac imaging with echocardiography is indicated, as this presentation could be the initial manifestation of structural heart disease.' https://www.uptodate.com/contents/chronic-bifascicular-blocks",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 13": {
"description": "States that the patient's systolic blood pressure decreased by 25 mmHg from supine to standing.",
"sources": "Patient Info.pdf",
"justification": "From the Patient Infor.pdf: 'Supine BP 135/76 mmHg Standing BP 110/68 mmHg' 135 \u2013 110 = 25mmHg.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 14": {
"description": "States that orthostatic hypotension is defined as a reduction of 20 mmHg or more in systolic pressure from supine to standing.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Orthostatic hypotension is diagnosed by comparing blood pressure readings in the supine and standing positions. The threshold of change in blood pressure after one to three minutes of standing is: \u2022 A reduction of 20 mmHg or more in systolic pressure, and/or \u2022 A reduction of 10 mmHg or more in diastolic pressure' https://www.uptodate.com/contents/mechanisms-causes-and-evaluation-of-orthostatic-hypotension",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 15": {
"description": "States that the patient has orthostatic hypotension.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Orthostatic hypotension is diagnosed by comparing blood pressure readings in the supine and standing positions. The threshold of change in blood pressure after one to three minutes of standing is: \u2022 A reduction of 20 mmHg or more in systolic pressure, and/or \u2022 A reduction of 10 mmHg or more in diastolic pressure' https://www.uptodate.com/contents/mechanisms-causes-and-evaluation-of-orthostatic-hypotension",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
13,
14
]
},
"criterion 16": {
"description": "Identifies orthostatic hypotension as a cause of the patient's syncope.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "From the prompt: 'A 66-year-old man with history of hypertension presents to clinic for follow up after a witnessed syncopal episode while gardening 1 week ago.' 'Orthostatic hypotension (OH), defined as a decrease in systolic blood pressure of at least 20 mmHg, or in diastolic blood pressure of at least 10 mmHg upon assuming upright posture, is another common cause of near-syncope and syncope.' https://www.uptodate.com/contents/syncope-in-adults-epidemiology-pathogenesis-and-etiologies",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
15
]
},
"criterion 17": {
"description": "Recommends stopping blood pressure medications.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Per the algorithm in referenced article, initial step in managing orthostatic hypotension is the discontinuation of exacerbating or contributory medications. https://www.uptodate.com/contents/mechanisms-causes-and-evaluation-of-orthostatic-hypotension",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
15
]
}
}
|
documents/1389/Patient Info.pdf
|
1,359
|
Medicine
|
For the following clinical scenario, please refer to the attached documents: American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) immunization schedule and the patient's immunization record.
A 3-year-old male presents in October 2025 for his well-child visit, which is slightly delayed. He received his hepatitis B vaccine at birth and has remained up to date on all immunizations since then. He has no other medical problems.
Assuming the remainder of his well-child examination is unremarkable, should he receive any immunizations today? Explain your reasoning.
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "Recommends that the child should receive a Measles, Mumps and Rubella (MMR) vaccine today.",
"sources": "AAP-Immunization-Schedule.pdf Immunization record for patient in task 1394.pdf",
"justification": "As per the prompt, it is presently October 2025. As per dependencies, 'the child's first dose of the MMR vaccine was invalid.' 'MMR - 03/4/23' Source document ''AAP-Immunization-Schedule.pdf Immunization record for patient in task 1394.pdf' record for patient in task 1394.pdf' 'The repeat dose should be spaced after the invalid dose by the recommended minimum interval.' and 'at least 4 weeks apart' Source document 'AAP-Immunization-Schedule.pdf",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
9
]
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "Recommends that the child should receive a Varicella vaccine today.",
"sources": "AAP-Immunization-Schedule.pdf Immunization record for patient in task 1394.pdf",
"justification": "As per prompt, it is presently October 2025. As per dependency, 'the child's first dose of the Varicella vaccine was invalid.' 'Varicella - 03/4/23' Source document 'Immunization record for patient in task 1394.pdf' 'The repeat dose should be spaced after the invalid dose by the recommended minimum interval.' and ' at least 4 weeks apart' Source document 'AAP-Immunization-Schedule.pdf",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
13
]
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "States that any vaccine administered 5 or more days earlier than the minimum age is invalid.",
"sources": "AAP-Immunization-Schedule.pdf",
"justification": "'Vaccine doses administered \u22644 days before the minimum age or interval are considered valid. Doses of any vaccine administered \u22655 days earlier than the minimum age or minimum interval should not be counted as valid and should be repeated as age appropriate.' Page 5 Source document 'AAP-Immunization-Schedule.pdf'",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
21
]
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "States that if an invalid vaccine dose was given, it should be repeated at the appropriate age.",
"sources": "AAP-Immunization-Schedule.pdf",
"justification": "'The repeat dose should be spaced after the invalid dose by the recommended minimum interval.' Page 5 Source document 'AAP-Immunization-Schedule.pdf'",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
21
]
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "States the child received his first MMR vaccine on 4th March 2023.",
"sources": "Immunization record for patient in task 1394.pdf",
"justification": "'MMR - 03/4/23' Source document 'Immunization record for patient in task 1394.pdf'",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "States the child's date of birth is 10th March 2022.",
"sources": "Immunization record for patient in task 1394.pdf",
"justification": "Per the prompt, the child received his Hep B vaccine on his date of birth. 'Hep B - 03/10/22' Source document 'Immunization record for patient in task 1394.pdf'",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "States the minimum age for the first MMR vaccine is 12 months.",
"sources": "AAP-Immunization-Schedule.pdf",
"justification": "'Measles, mumps, and rubella 12 months' Source document 'AAP-Immunization-Schedule.pdf'",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
21
]
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "States that the child received the first MMR vaccine 5 days before turning 12 months old.",
"sources": "Immunization record for patient in task 1394.pdf",
"justification": "As per dependencies. Source document 'Immunization record for patient in task 1394.pdf'",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
5,
6,
7
]
},
"criterion 9": {
"description": "Concludes that the child's first MMR vaccine was invalid.",
"sources": "AAP-Immunization-Schedule.pdf",
"justification": "Per dependency, 'the child received his MMR vaccine on 3/4/23', 6 days prior to him being 12 months old. 'Vaccine doses administered \u22644 days before the minimum age or interval are considered valid. Doses of any vaccine administered \u22655 days earlier than the minimum age or minimum interval should not be counted as valid and should be repeated as age appropriate. The repeat dose should be spaced after the invalid dose by the recommended minimum interval.' Source document 'AAP-Immunization-Schedule.pdf'",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
8,
3
]
},
"criterion 10": {
"description": "States that the child received the first Varicella vaccine dose on 4th March 2023.",
"sources": "Immunization record for patient in task 1394.pdf",
"justification": "'Varicella - 03/4/23' Source document 'Immunization record for patient in task 1394.pdf'",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 11": {
"description": "States that the minimum age for the first dose of the Varicella vaccine is 12 months.",
"sources": "AAP-Immunization-Schedule.pdf",
"justification": "'Varicella 12 months' Source document 'AAP-Immunization-Schedule.pdf'",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
21
]
},
"criterion 12": {
"description": "States that the child received his first dose of the Varicella vaccine 5 days before he turned 12 months old.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "As per dependencies.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
10,
11,
6
]
},
"criterion 13": {
"description": "Concludes that the child's first dose of the Varicella vaccine was invalid.",
"sources": "AAP-Immunization-Schedule.pdf",
"justification": "As per dependencies 'the child received his Varicella vaccine on 3/4/23', 6 days prior to him being 12 months old. 'Vaccine doses administered \u22644 days before the minimum age or interval are considered valid. Doses of any vaccine administered \u22655 days earlier than the minimum age or minimum interval should not be counted as valid and should be repeated as age appropriate. The repeat dose should be spaced after the invalid dose by the recommended minimum interval.' Source document 'AAP-Immunization-Schedule.pdf'",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
12,
3,
4
]
},
"criterion 14": {
"description": "States the COVID vaccine is recommended for children aged 6 months through 23 months.",
"sources": "AAP-Immunization-Schedule.pdf",
"justification": "'COVID-19 vaccination (minimum age: 6 months [Moderna Spikevax] Routine vaccination Everyone age 6\u201323 months' Source document 'AAP-Immunization-Schedule.pdf'",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
21
]
},
"criterion 15": {
"description": "Recognizes that the child is 3 years and 7 months old.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "This is calculated from the date of birth on dependency, and the present month in the prompt which is October 2025.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 16": {
"description": "States that the child has not received his COVID vaccine yet.",
"sources": "Immunization record for patient in task 1394.pdf",
"justification": "Source document 'Immunization record for patient in task 1394.pdf'.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
14,
15
]
},
"criterion 17": {
"description": "Recommends that the child receives a COVID-19 vaccine during the present visit.",
"sources": "AAP-Immunization-Schedule.pdf",
"justification": "'COVID-19 vaccination (minimum age: 6 months [Moderna Spikevax] Routine vaccination Everyone age 6\u201323 months' Source document 'AAP-Immunization-Schedule.pdf'",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
16
]
},
"criterion 18": {
"description": "States that an annual influenza vaccine is recommended for children above 6 months of age.",
"sources": "AAP-Immunization-Schedule.pdf",
"justification": "'Age 6 months\u20138 years who have received at least 2 influenza vaccine doses before July 1, 2025: recommendation is 1 dose.' Page 9 Source document 'AAP-Immunization-Schedule.pdf'",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": true,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
21
]
},
"criterion 19": {
"description": "Recognizes that the child has not received his influenza vaccine for the year 2025.",
"sources": "Immunization record for patient in task 1394.pdf",
"justification": "Source document 'Immunization record for patient in task 1394.pdf'",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": true,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 20": {
"description": "Recommends that the child receives an influenza vaccine during the present visit.",
"sources": "AAP-Immunization-Schedule.pdf Immunization record for patient in task 1394.pdf",
"justification": "'Influenza - 09/20/22 Influenza - 10/22/22' Source document 'Immunization record for patient in task 1394.pdf' 'Age 6 months\u20138 years who have received at least 2 influenza vaccine doses before July 1, 2025: recommendation is 1 dose.' Page 9 Source document 'AAP-Immunization-Schedule.pdf' Also due to criterion stating that visit is in October 2025 - as during this period the vaccination is most necessary to prevent infections from a spike in cases.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": true,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
18,
19,
22
]
},
"criterion 21": {
"description": "Utilizes recommendations from the AAP.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "As stated in the prompt.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 22": {
"description": "Recognizes that the present clinic visit is in October 2025.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "As stated in the prompt.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": true,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
}
}
|
documents/1359/AAP-Immunization-Schedule.pdf
documents/1359/Immunization record for patient in task 1394.pdf
|
1,407
|
Medicine
|
A patient whose medical information is in the attached document comes to your clinic. Her most recent liver tests are stable.
What changes, if any, should be made to the patient’s resmetirom dose? Explain your reasoning.
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "States that the patient's pants feel tighter.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Prompt: 'The patient reports walking 2 miles daily, and states she is following her diet, but notes that her pants feel tighter.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "States that the patient's tighter pants could indicate weight gain",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Clinical reasoning based on prompt. 'Clinical reasoning is a core component of clinical competency that is used in all patient encounters from simple to complex presentations. It involves synthesis of myriad clinical and investigative data, to generate and prioritize an appropriate differential diagnosis and inform safe and targeted management plans.' -https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6667400/",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1
]
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "States that the patient's actual body weight should be measured.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'The recommended dosage of REZDIFFRA is based on actual body weight.' -https://www.madrigalpharma.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/rezdiffra-prescribing-information-07-2024.pdf",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
2
]
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "States that the resmetirom dosing will depend on the patient's weight.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'The recommended dosage of REZDIFFRA is based on actual body weight.' -https://www.madrigalpharma.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/rezdiffra-prescribing-information-07-2024.pdf",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
3
]
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "States that if a patient's weight is 220 pounds or greater, the resmetirom dose should be 100 mg.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'For patients weighing: \u2022 <100 kg, the recommended dosage is 80 mg orally once daily. \u2022 \u2265100 kg, the recommended dosage is 100 mg orally once daily.' -https://www.madrigalpharma.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/rezdiffra-prescribing-information-07-2024.pdf 220 pounds is considered 99.79 kg.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
4
]
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "States that the patient is currently taking loratadine.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "From the prompt: 'Since the last visit, the patient has started loratadine.'",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "States that loratadine is a moderate cytochrome P450 CYP2C8 inhibitor.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "See table 1. 'Table 1.Perpetrators and Substrates of CYP2C8...loratadine, medroxyprogesterone acetate, nicardipine, nilotinib, oxybutynin, pioglitazone, pirtobrutinib, quinine, rabeprazole, rosiglitazone...' -https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12450030/ ; also see a second reference here: 'Seventeen moderate inhibitors of rhCYP2C8 (1 < IC50 < 10 microM) included salmeterol, raloxifene, fenofibrate, ritonavir, levothyroxine, tamoxifen, loratadine' -https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15601807/",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "States that resmetirom is metabolized by CYP2C8.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Resmetirom is metabolized by CYP2C8. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11569717/",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 9": {
"description": "States that if resmetirom is used with loratadine, the resmetirom level may increase.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'If REZDIFFRA is used concomitantly with a moderate CYP2C8 inhibitor (e.g., clopidogrel) [see Drug Interactions (7.1)], reduce the dosage of REZDIFFRA: \u2022 <100 kg, reduce the dosage of REZDIFFRA to 60 mg once daily. \u2022 \u2265100 kg, reduce the dosage of REZDIFFRA to 80 mg once daily.' -https://www.madrigalpharma.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/rezdiffra-prescribing-information-07-2024.pdf",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
6,
7,
8
]
},
"criterion 10": {
"description": "States that if resmetirom is used with loratadine, the resmetirom dose may need to be reduced.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'If REZDIFFRA is used concomitantly with a moderate CYP2C8 inhibitor (e.g., clopidogrel) [see Drug Interactions (7.1)], reduce the dosage of REZDIFFRA: \u2022 <100 kg, reduce the dosage of REZDIFFRA to 60 mg once daily. \u2022 \u2265100 kg, reduce the dosage of REZDIFFRA to 80 mg once daily.' -https://www.madrigalpharma.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/rezdiffra-prescribing-information-07-2024.pdf",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
9
]
},
"criterion 11": {
"description": "Concludes that if a patient's weight is 220 pounds or greater, the resmetirom dose should be 80 mg while taking with loratadine.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'If REZDIFFRA is used concomitantly with a moderate CYP2C8 inhibitor (e.g., clopidogrel) [see Drug Interactions (7.1)], reduce the dosage of REZDIFFRA: \u2022 <100 kg, reduce the dosage of REZDIFFRA to 60 mg once daily. \u2022 \u2265100 kg, reduce the dosage of REZDIFFRA to 80 mg once daily.' -https://www.madrigalpharma.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/rezdiffra-prescribing-information-07-2024.pdf",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
10,
4
]
},
"criterion 12": {
"description": "Concludes that if a patient's weight is below 220 pounds, the resmetirom dose should be 60 mg while taking with loratadine.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'If REZDIFFRA is used concomitantly with a moderate CYP2C8 inhibitor (e.g., clopidogrel) [see Drug Interactions (7.1)], reduce the dosage of REZDIFFRA: \u2022 <100 kg, reduce the dosage of REZDIFFRA to 60 mg once daily. \u2022 \u2265100 kg, reduce the dosage of REZDIFFRA to 80 mg once daily.' -https://www.madrigalpharma.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/rezdiffra-prescribing-information-07-2024.pdf",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
10,
4
]
},
"criterion 13": {
"description": "Concludes that the clinician should discuss the risks of continuing loratadine with the patient.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Clinical reasoning step based on patient safety and shared decision-making. 'Care happens in interaction between the patient and the clinician, in conversation where the patient and clinician uncover or develop a shared understanding of the problematic situation of the patient and identify, discover, or invent ways to make that situation better, given what each patient prioritises and seeks.1 Thus, to get the right care for each patient, patient and clinician collaborate and deliberate together to figure out what to do.' -https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10423463/",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
10
]
},
"criterion 14": {
"description": "Concludes that the clinician should discuss the benefits of continuing loratadine with the patient.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Clinical reasoning step based on patient safety and shared decision-making. 'Care happens in interaction between the patient and the clinician, in conversation where the patient and clinician uncover or develop a shared understanding of the problematic situation of the patient and identify, discover, or invent ways to make that situation better, given what each patient prioritises and seeks.1 Thus, to get the right care for each patient, patient and clinician collaborate and deliberate together to figure out what to do.' -https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10423463/",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
10
]
}
}
|
documents/1407/Attachment1407 .docx
|
1,415
|
Medicine
|
A 45-year-old man presents with 4 weeks of non-bloody, watery diarrhea, occurring 4 to 5 times daily. He reports that the diarrhea started after returning from a business trip to Mexico. He has also been experiencing a significant amount of work-related stress since the business trip and feels increasingly more anxious, which he believes has made his diarrhea worse. As a teenager, he sometimes experienced diarrhea with anxiety. He reports associated mild abdominal cramping without fever or weight loss. He denies nocturnal symptoms. He takes levothyroxine for hypothyroidism due to Hashimoto's thyroiditis and denies recent antibiotic use. He is wondering about management options to alleviate his symptoms. He has been following a lactose-free diet.
Please further refer to the attached document (Patient Infor.pdf) to answer the following questions:
What is the most appropriate immediate next step in the patient's management and why?
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "States that the patient's non-bloody diarrhea has lasted for 4 weeks.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "From the prompt: 'A 45-year-old man presents with 4 weeks of non-bloody, watery diarrhea, occurring 4 to 5 times daily.'",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "States that the patient has chronic diarrhea.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Chronic diarrhea is defined as a persistent alteration of stool consistency from the norm with loose stools\u2026and increased stool frequency of greater than three stools daily of at least four weeks' duration.' https://www.uptodate.com/contents/approach-to-the-adult-with-chronic-diarrhea-in-resource-abundant-settings",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1
]
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "Identifies microscopic colitis as a cause of chronic diarrhea.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Microscopic colitis is a chronic inflammatory disease of the colon that is characterized by chronic, watery, non-bloody diarrhea.' https://www.uptodate.com/contents/microscopic-lymphocytic-and-collagenous-colitis-clinical-manifestations-diagnosis-and-management",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "States that the patient is 45 years old.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "From the prompt: 'A 45-year-old man presents with 4 weeks of non-bloody, watery diarrhea, occurring 4 to 5 times daily.'",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "States that middle age is a risk factor for microscopic colitis.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Microscopic colitis should be suspected in patients with chronic diarrhea, particularly in middle-aged and older adults.' https://www.uptodate.com/contents/microscopic-lymphocytic-and-collagenous-colitis-clinical-manifestations-diagnosis-and-management",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "States that the patient has Hashimoto's thyroiditis.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "From the prompt: 'He takes levothyroxine for hypothyroidism due to Hashimoto's thyroiditis and denies recent antibiotic use.'",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "States that Hashimoto's thyroiditis is associated with microscopic colitis.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Microscopic colitis has also been associated with several other diseases with autoimmune background (eg, autoimmune thyroiditis, type 1 diabetes mellitus, and nonerosive, oligoarticular arthritis).' https://www.uptodate.com/contents/microscopic-lymphocytic-and-collagenous-colitis-clinical-manifestations-diagnosis-and-management",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "States that the patient smokes cigarettes.",
"sources": "Patient Info.pdf",
"justification": "From the Patient Infor.pdf: 'Social History: Occasionally drinks alcohol; smokes cigarettes.'",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 9": {
"description": "States that smoking is a risk factor for microscopic colitis.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Smoking may play a role in the development of microscopic colitis and the clinical outcome. In a case-control study that included 340 patients with microscopic colitis, cigarette smoking (past or present) was associated with an increased risk of microscopic colitis (odds ratio 2.1, 95% CI 1.6-2.9). On average, smokers also develop microscopic colitis more than 10 years earlier than non-smokers.' https://www.uptodate.com/contents/microscopic-lymphocytic-and-collagenous-colitis-clinical-manifestations-diagnosis-and-management",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 10": {
"description": "States that the patient has normal colonic mucosa on colonoscopy.",
"sources": "Patient Info.pdf",
"justification": "From the Patient Infor.pdf: 'Colonoscopy: normal appearing mucosa throughout, no polyps, no biopsies taken.'",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 11": {
"description": "States that the colon appears normal on colonoscopy in microscopic colitis.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'The colon appears typically normal or almost normal on colonoscopy in patients with microscopic colitis.' https://www.uptodate.com/contents/microscopic-lymphocytic-and-collagenous-colitis-clinical-manifestations-diagnosis-and-management",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 12": {
"description": "States that the patient did not have a colonic mucosa biopsy.",
"sources": "Patient Infor.pdf",
"justification": "From the Patient Infor.pdf: 'Colonoscopy: normal appearing mucosa throughout, no polyps, no biopsies taken.'",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 13": {
"description": "States that a colonic mucosa biopsy is required for diagnosis of microscopic colitis.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Endoscopic evaluation of the colon with mucosal biopsies is necessary to establish the diagnosis of microscopic colitis.' https://www.uptodate.com/contents/microscopic-lymphocytic-and-collagenous-colitis-clinical-manifestations-diagnosis-and-management",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 14": {
"description": "Recommends a repeat colonoscopy.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Endoscopic evaluation of the colon with mucosal biopsies is necessary to establish the diagnosis of microscopic colitis.' https://www.uptodate.com/contents/microscopic-lymphocytic-and-collagenous-colitis-clinical-manifestations-diagnosis-and-management",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
16
]
},
"criterion 15": {
"description": "Recommends obtaining a colonic mucosa biopsy.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Endoscopic evaluation of the colon with mucosal biopsies is necessary to establish the diagnosis of microscopic colitis.' https://www.uptodate.com/contents/microscopic-lymphocytic-and-collagenous-colitis-clinical-manifestations-diagnosis-and-management",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
12,
13,
16
]
},
"criterion 16": {
"description": "Concludes that the patient's clinical symptoms suggest microscopic colitis.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "The patient has chronic diarrhea, defined as diarrhea of at least 4 weeks duration. Microscopic colitis should be suspected as a cause of chronic non-bloody diarrhea, particularly among middle-aged adults; and the patient also has associated risk factors of autoimmune thyroiditis and smoking. Furthermore, the patient has not been adequately evaluated for microscopic colitis.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10,
11
]
}
}
|
documents/1415/Patient Info.pdf
|
1,426
|
Medicine
|
A 32-year-old woman from Puerto Rico with a history of systemic lupus erythematosus (previously treated with hydroxychloroquine) presents to the emergency department complaining of diarrhea.
She was recently admitted to the hospital for a lupus flare, characterized by diffuse arthralgias, bilateral palmar rash, and worsening renal function. She was treated with intravenous methylprednisolone and cyclophosphamide due to concern for lupus nephritis. She was discharged with a prednisone taper and a plan to continue cyclophosphamide infusions. Creatinine at the time of discharge was 2.10.
Upon presentation to the emergency department one week later, she reports several days of watery diarrhea, occurring up to four times daily. She denies recent unusual food intake or contact with individuals exhibiting similar symptoms. She also reports mild peri-umbilical pain and mild nausea without vomiting. She is unaware of any blood in her stool or black, tarry stools. Review of systems reveals joint pain in the wrists (which has improved since her previous hospitalization), dry cough, malaise, generalized urticaria, and headache.
Please refer to the attachment (Patient Case Task 1426.pdf) for further information about the patient case to answer the following questions:
What is the most likely cause of this patient’s symptoms? Please provide clinical reasoning to support this diagnosis.
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "States that the patient's diarrhea is associated with the diagnosis of Strongyloides hyperinfection syndrome.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "From the prompt: 'Upon presentation to the emergency department one week later, she reports several days of watery diarrhea, occurring up to four times daily.' 'The following signs and symptoms can be seen with hyperinfection syndrome and disseminated strongyloidiasis: Gastrointestinal manifestations Abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea Ileus, bowel edema, intestinal obstruction Mucosal ulceration, massive hemorrhage, and subsequent peritonitis or bacterial sepsis Pulmonary manifestations and findings Cough, wheezing, dyspnea, hoarseness Pneumonitis Hemoptysis Respiratory failure Diffuse interstitial infiltrates or consolidation on chest radiographs Neurologic findings Aseptic or gram-negative meningitis Larvae have been reported in the CSF, meningeal vessels, dura, epidural, subdural, and subarachnoid spaces Systemic signs and symptoms Peripheral edema and ascites secondary to hypoalbuminemia from protein losing enteropathy Recurrent gram negative bacteremia or sepsis from larvae carrying bacteria that penetrate mucosal walls Syndrome of inappropriate secretion of anti-diuretic hormone (SIADH) Peripheral eosinophilia is frequently absent Cutaneous manifestations Recurrent maculopapular or urticarial rash that can be found anywhere on the skin but is most commonly found along the buttocks, perineum, and thighs due to repeated auto-infection Larva currens\u2014serpiginous or urticarial rash that advances as rapidly as 10cm/hr.' https://www.cdc.gov/strongyloides/hcp/clinical-overview/index.html",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "States that the patient's dry cough is associated with the diagnosis of Strongyloides hyperinfection syndrome.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "From the prompt: 'Review of systems reveals joint pain in the wrists (which has improved since her previous hospitalization), dry cough, malaise, generalized urticaria, and headache.' 'The following signs and symptoms can be seen with hyperinfection syndrome and disseminated strongyloidiasis: Gastrointestinal manifestations Abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea Ileus, bowel edema, intestinal obstruction Mucosal ulceration, massive hemorrhage, and subsequent peritonitis or bacterial sepsis Pulmonary manifestations and findings Cough, wheezing, dyspnea, hoarseness Pneumonitis Hemoptysis Respiratory failure Diffuse interstitial infiltrates or consolidation on chest radiographs Neurologic findings Aseptic or gram-negative meningitis Larvae have been reported in the CSF, meningeal vessels, dura, epidural, subdural, and subarachnoid spaces Systemic signs and symptoms Peripheral edema and ascites secondary to hypoalbuminemia from protein losing enteropathy Recurrent gram negative bacteremia or sepsis from larvae carrying bacteria that penetrate mucosal walls Syndrome of inappropriate secretion of anti-diuretic hormone (SIADH) Peripheral eosinophilia is frequently absent Cutaneous manifestations Recurrent maculopapular or urticarial rash that can be found anywhere on the skin but is most commonly found along the buttocks, perineum, and thighs due to repeated auto-infection Larva currens\u2014serpiginous or urticarial rash that advances as rapidly as 10cm/hr.' https://www.cdc.gov/strongyloides/hcp/clinical-overview/index.html",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "States that the patient's eosinophilia is associated with the diagnosis of Strongyloides hyperinfection syndrome.",
"sources": "Patient Case Task 1426.pdf",
"justification": "From the Patient Case Task 1426.pdf: 'Eosinophils: 1.0x10^9/L.' 'A count is higher than normal with results of more than 500 cells per microliter of blood.' https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/body/23402-eosinophils 'A meta-analysis aiming to describe the pattern and frequency of clinical and laboratory characteristics associated with S. stercoralis infection showed that symptoms were reported in 50.4 percent of cases, more often in nonendemic than endemic areas (58 versus 36 percent), and almost 70 percent had eosinophilia' https://www.uptodate.com/contents/strongyloidiasis?search=strongyloides%20hyperinfection",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "States that the patient's erythematous rash is associated with the diagnosis of Strongyloides hyperinfection syndrome.",
"sources": "Patient Case Task 1426.pdf",
"justification": "From the Patient Case Task 1426.pdf: 'An erythematous rash is noted on the thighs and buttocks.' 'Recurrent maculopapular or urticarial rash that can be found anywhere on the skin but is most commonly found along the buttocks, perineum, and thighs due to repeated auto-infection' https://www.cdc.gov/strongyloides/hcp/clinical-overview/index.html",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "States that the patient's urticaria is associated with the diagnosis of Strongyloides hyperinfection syndrome.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "From the prompt: 'Review of systems reveals joint pain in the wrists (which has improved since her previous hospitalization), dry cough, malaise, generalized urticaria, and headache.' 'Recurrent maculopapular or urticarial rash that can be found anywhere on the skin but is most commonly found along the buttocks, perineum, and thighs due to repeated auto-infection' https://www.cdc.gov/strongyloides/hcp/clinical-overview/index.html",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "Recognizes that the patient is from Puerto Rico.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "From the prompt: 'A 32-year-old woman from Puerto Rico with a history of systemic lupus erythematosus (previously treated with hydroxychloroquine) presents to the emergency department complaining of diarrhea.'",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "Recognizes that Strongyloides infection is endemic in Puerto Rico.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'In the United States, it is found in warm and moist, rural, and agricultural areas, particularly Puerto Rico, Appalachia, and the Southeastern United States.' https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7253084/",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "States that the patient's origin is associated with the diagnosis of Strongyloides hyperinfection syndrome.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'In the United States, it is found in warm and moist, rural, and agricultural areas, particularly Puerto Rico, Appalachia, and the Southeastern United States.' https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7253084/",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
6,
7
]
},
"criterion 9": {
"description": "Recognizes that the patient recently received steroids.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "From the prompt: 'She was treated with intravenous methylprednisolone and cyclophosphamide due to concern for lupus nephritis. She was discharged with a prednisone taper and a plan to continue cyclophosphamide infusions.'",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 10": {
"description": "Recognizes that the patient recently received cyclophosphamide.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "From the prompt: 'She was treated with intravenous methylprednisolone and cyclophosphamide due to concern for lupus nephritis. She was discharged with a prednisone taper and a plan to continue cyclophosphamide infusions.'",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 11": {
"description": "Recognizes that at least one of the following medications is immunosuppressive: steroid or cyclophosphamide.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Glucocorticoids are predominantly involved in metabolism and have immunosuppressive, anti-inflammatory, and vasoconstrictive effects.' https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK554612/",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 12": {
"description": "States that the patient is immunosuppressed.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "The patient recently received both cyclophosphamide and steroids. 'Glucocorticoids are predominantly involved in metabolism and have immunosuppressive, anti-inflammatory, and vasoconstrictive effects.' https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK554612/ 'As an effective immunosuppressive agent, cyclophosphamide multiple studies have found cyclophosphamide useful in the treatment of autoimmune diseases.' https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK553087/",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
9,
10,
11
]
},
"criterion 13": {
"description": "States that the patient's immunosuppressed status is associated with the diagnosis of Strongyloides hyperinfection syndrome.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Hyperinfection syndrome and disseminated strongyloidiasis are most frequently associated with subclinical infection in patients receiving high-dose corticosteroids.' https://www.cdc.gov/strongyloides/hcp/clinical-overview/index.html",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
12
]
},
"criterion 14": {
"description": "Concludes that the most likely cause of the patient's symptoms is Strongyloides hyperinfection syndrome.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "The patient's combination of immunosuppression, urticaria, rash, dry cough, eosinophilia, and diarrhea makes Strongyloides the most likely diagnosis. https://www.cdc.gov/strongyloides/hcp/clinical-overview/index.html",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1,
2,
4,
5,
8,
13,
3
]
}
}
|
documents/1426/Patient Case Task 1426.pdf
|
1,431
|
Medicine
|
Note: Please refer to the attached document, Patient info for task 1431.pdf to answer this task.
A 14-year-old teen presents to the clinic for obesity follow-up. According to her mother, she has always been overweight. Her mother does not allow snacks and soda at home and prepares family meals for breakfast and lunch. She is unsure of the teen's eating habits while at school. The teen states that she tries to eat healthy, but does eat some pizza. She also likes to drink Coke. She has at least one soda a day, but has cut back since last visit. She presents her food diary and it is reviewed.
This family no longer has insurance and mom is already concerned about today's visit bill. Luckily, the teen has already been tested for diabetes and had normal results. When you discuss the need for further lab work, mom states they cannot afford it. What three things in her presentation can predict the risk of CVD events in an adolescent just as well as a lipid panel? Discuss clinical reasoning.
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "States that the risk of CVD events can be predicted by adolescent risk factors.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'The results from the present study suggest that a risk prediction method based on BMI, blood pressure, and smoking status that does not require any laboratory tests could be noninferior to one requiring laboratory information.i' https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/154/5/e2024066736/199627/Predictors-in-Youth-of-Adult-Cardiovascular-Events",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "Lists body mass index (BMI) as an adolescent risk factor.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'The results from the present study suggest that a risk prediction method based on BMI, blood pressure, and smoking status that does not require any laboratory tests could be noninferior to one requiring laboratory information.i' https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/154/5/e2024066736/199627/Predictors-in-Youth-of-Adult-Cardiovascular-Events",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1
]
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "Lists hypertension as an adolescent risk factor.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'The results from the present study suggest that a risk prediction method based on BMI, blood pressure, and smoking status that does not require any laboratory tests could be noninferior to one requiring laboratory information.i' https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/154/5/e2024066736/199627/Predictors-in-Youth-of-Adult-Cardiovascular-Events",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1
]
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "Lists smoking status as an adolescent risk factor.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'The results from the present study suggest that a risk prediction method based on BMI, blood pressure, and smoking status that does not require any laboratory tests could be noninferior to one requiring laboratory information.i' https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/154/5/e2024066736/199627/Predictors-in-Youth-of-Adult-Cardiovascular-Events",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1
]
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "States the patient is 14 years old.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'A 14-year-old teen presents to the clinic' Prompt",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "States that the patient weighs 205 pounds.",
"sources": "Patient info for task 1431.pdf",
"justification": "'Weight 205 pounds' Patient info for task 1431.pdf",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "States that the patient's height is 64 inches.",
"sources": "Patient info for task 1431.pdf",
"justification": "'Height: 64 inches' Patient info for task 1431.pdf",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "Concludes that the patient has a body mass index of 35.2 kg/m2 .",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Uses 205 pounds and 64 inches in BMI calculator to calculate BMI for 14 year old girl. https://www.uptodate.com/contents/calculator-body-mass-index-bmi-percentiles-and-z-scores-females-2-to-20-years-cdc?search=body%20mass%20index%20of%20children&topicRef=5861&source=see_link",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
5,
6,
7,
17
]
},
"criterion 9": {
"description": "States that a BMI of 35.2 kg/m2 in considered obese.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Class 2 obesity \u2026 BMI \u2265 35 kg/m2 to <40 kg/m2\u2026 based on age and sex' https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/151/2/e2022060640/190443/Clinical-Practice-Guideline-for-the-Evaluation-and",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
8
]
},
"criterion 10": {
"description": "States that the patient's blood pressure is 116/73 mmHg.",
"sources": "Patient info for task 1431.pdf",
"justification": "'Blood pressure: 116/73 mmHg' Patient info for task 1431.pdf",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 11": {
"description": "States that the patient's height is in the 63rd percentile.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Uses 64 inches and teen's age of 14 and likely female in calculator to get height percentile for age. https://www.uptodate.com/contents/calculator-height-for-age-percentiles-and-z-scores-females-2-to-20-years-cdc?search=calculating%20height%20for%20age%20percentile%20in%20childrec&source=search_result&selectedTitle=1~150&usage_type=default&display_rank=1",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
5,
7
]
},
"criterion 12": {
"description": "States that the patient's blood pressure is normal.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "This teen (likely female) who is 63rd %ile for height and is 14 years old should have a BP less than 122/76. Table 3 https://www.uptodate.com/contents/hypertension-in-children-and-adolescents-evaluation?search=normal%20blood%20pressure%20in%20children&topicRef=6087&source=see_link",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
10,
11,
17
]
},
"criterion 13": {
"description": "States that the patient does not smoke.",
"sources": "Patient info for task 1431.pdf",
"justification": "'She has no history of smoking or vaping.' Patient info for task 1431.pdf",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 14": {
"description": "Concludes that that patient has one risk factor for a CVD event.",
"sources": "Patient info for task 1431.pdf",
"justification": "BMI calculated in Criterion 8 as 35.2 kg/m2 'Blood pressure: 116/73 mmHg' and 'She has no history of smoking or vaping.' Patient info for task 1431.pdf 'BMI, blood pressure, and smoking status' https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/154/5/e2024066736/199627/Predictors-in-Youth-of-Adult-Cardiovascular-Events",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1,
2,
9,
16,
4,
3,
15
]
},
"criterion 15": {
"description": "States that the adolescent risk factors do not require labs.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'The results from the present study suggest that a risk prediction method based on BMI, blood pressure, and smoking status that does not require any laboratory tests could be noninferior to one requiring laboratory information.i' https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/154/5/e2024066736/199627/Predictors-in-Youth-of-Adult-Cardiovascular-Events",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1
]
},
"criterion 16": {
"description": "States that the patient does not vape.",
"sources": "Patient info for task 1431.pdf",
"justification": "'She has no history of smoking or vaping.' Patient info for task 1431.pdf",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 17": {
"description": "States the patient is likely female.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "A 14-year-old teen presents to the clinic for obesity follow-up. According to her mother, she has always been overweight. Prompt",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
}
}
|
documents/1431/Patient info for task 1431.pdf
|
1,436
|
Medicine
|
Note: refer to the attached General Practitioner (GP) home visit document for the following task.
Based on the GP home visit report, give the most likely diagnosis in this case with justification.
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "Identifies that Fregoli Syndrome is the most likely diagnosis.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Fregoli syndrome is a delusion of misidentification, first described by Courbon and Fail in 1927 (1). It is characterized by the belief that a familiar person or people are presenting themselves to the affected individual disguised as others, meaning the appearance of individuals in the patient's environment is accurately perceived, but these individuals, typically strangers, are misidentified as being familiar people in disguise (2). Commonly, a patient with Fregoli syndrome misidentifies several individuals as being the same familiar person in several different disguises, and the familiar person is often perceived to be intentionally following the affected individual (3).' https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.neuropsych.22010011",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
2,
3,
7,
8,
10,
9,
11
]
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "Identifies the patient exhibits a clear delusional belief.",
"sources": "Patient consultation.pdf",
"justification": "'He believes Mike is a 'master of disguise' and is constantly following and monitoring him. He has identified several different people in the community (new postman, a lady on a bus, a coffee shop barista) as being Mike in disguise. These beliefs are fixed and held with absolute conviction.' Quote from Source (Patient consultation.pdf) 'Fregoli delusion is the mistaken belief that some person currently present in the deluded person's environment (typically a stranger) is a familiar person in disguise.' https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/tops.12108 'Fregoli syndrome is a rare delusion characterized by the belief that familiar people are presenting themselves disguised as others to the affected person.' https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.neuropsych.22010011",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "Identifies that there is a change from his baseline mental state.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "The symptoms developed over the past two months, indicating a distinct change from his baseline mental state.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "States that a change in the baseline mental state is consistent with Fregoli Syndrome.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'The clinical history of the woman, collected with the help of her family members, was negative for previous psychiatric disorders' https://old.jpsychopathol.it/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/10-Salviati1.pdf 'The case herein reported is an example of how an infective state can hide itself behind a psycho-pathological event. The patient had no previous psychiatric disorders; she had a history of type 2 diabetes, in good clinical and metabolic compensation; moreover, her mild cognitive impairment (based on cerebrovascular disease and confirmed by imaging studies and neuro-psychological tests) was asymptomatic. In this case, an acute pneumonia associated with a urinary infection triggered a delusional false recognition.' https://old.jpsychopathol.it/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/10-Salviati1.pdf",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
3
]
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "Identifies the delusion has a persecutory nature.",
"sources": "Patient consultation.pdf",
"justification": "'He believes Mike is a 'master of disguise' and is constantly following and monitoring him.' Source (Patient consultation.pdf) 'His sister reports he has cut off contact with her, accusing her of 'deceiving him'. Neighbours have also raised concerns about a deterioration in his personal hygiene and an incident where he made' Source (Patient consultation.pdf) 'His Fregoli delusion was part of this web; he believed that he was being followed and persecuted by 'Saruman,' one of the main characters in Lord of the Rings, who took on the guise of the different people he met (the multiple real persons).' https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/tops.12108 'This is because Fregoli patients believe that they see someone they know in disguise. We were also able to show that Fregoli differs from more generic persecutory delusional beliefs about being monitored by impersonal group entities, such as the CIA. This is because Fregoli patients nominate specific known person(s) who persecute as appearing in disguise.' https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/tops.12108",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "Identifies there is a single persecutor.",
"sources": "Patient consultation.pdf",
"justification": "'He believes Mike is a 'master of disguise' and is constantly following and monitoring him. He has identified several different people in the community (new postman, a lady on a bus, a coffee shop barista) as being Mike in disguise.' Source (patient consultation.pdf) 'Fregoli delusion is the mistaken belief that some person currently present in the deluded person's environment (typically a stranger) is a familiar person in disguise. The stranger is believed to be psychologically identical to this known person (who is not present) even though the deluded person perceives the physical appearance of the stranger as being different from the known person's typical appearance.' https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/tops.12108",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
5
]
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "Identifies that the single persecutor is a 'master of disguise'.",
"sources": "Patient consultation.pdf",
"justification": "'He believes Mike is a 'master of disguise' and is constantly following and monitoring him. He has identified several different people in the community (new postman, a lady on a bus, a coffee shop barista) as being Mike in disguise.' Source (patient consultation.pdf) 'Fregoli delusion is the mistaken belief that some person currently present in the deluded person's environment (typically a stranger) is a familiar person in disguise. The stranger is believed to be psychologically identical to this known person (who is not present) even though the deluded person perceives the physical appearance of the stranger as being different from the known person's typical appearance.' https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/tops.12108",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
6
]
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "Identifies the absence of hallucinations is not consistent with schizophrenia.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Moreover, they were less likely to have formal thought disorder, to experience auditory hallucinations, to experience other misidentification and paranoid delusions, and to show violent behavior.' https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.neuropsych.22010011 'The symptoms of schizophrenia are usually classified into: positive symptoms \u2013 any change in behaviour or thoughts, such as hallucinations or delusions' https://www.nhs.uk/mental-health/conditions/schizophrenia/symptoms/#:~:text=positive%20symptoms%20%E2%80%93%20any%20change%20in,Delusions",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 9": {
"description": "Identifies that the patient consistently misidentifies multiple strangers as being one person.",
"sources": "Patient consultation.pdf",
"justification": "'He believes Mike is a 'master of disguise' and is constantly following and monitoring him. He has identified several different people in the community (new postman, a lady on a bus, a coffee shop barista) as being Mike in disguise.' Source (Patient consultation.pdf) 'Fregoli delusion is the mistaken belief that some person currently present in the deluded person's environment (typically a stranger) is a familiar person in disguise. The stranger is believed to be psychologically identical to this known person (who is not present) even though the deluded person perceives the physical appearance of the stranger as being different from the known person's typical appearance.' https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/tops.12108",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 10": {
"description": "Identifies the patient's delusion causes them significant functional decline.",
"sources": "Patient consultation.pdf",
"justification": "'Neighbours have also raised concerns about a deterioration in his personal hygiene and an incident where he made an accusation'. Source (Patient consultation.pdf) 'The specific ways a person's functioning declines vary based on their symptoms, which are often characterized by fear and distrust. Social withdrawal: Individuals with Fregoli syndrome may refuse to interact with family members or caregivers they believe to be impostors, leading to isolation and withdrawal. Disrupted daily activities: The constant paranoia and agitation can make it difficult to perform routine tasks, maintain employment, or manage finances. Behavioral issues: The delusion can provoke aggressive or violent behavior toward people the patient believes are their persecutors. Impaired relationships: The inability to trust others, particularly loved ones, severely damages personal relationships and can make caregiving extremely challenging. Reduced self-care: A person's ability to take care of their own needs may decline due to extreme fear or anxiety related to the delusion.' https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9129698/#:~:text=Introduction,of%20another%20patient%20at%20hospital.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 11": {
"description": "Identifies that the patient's prior head injury is a risk factor for Fregoli syndrome.",
"sources": "Patient consultation.pdf",
"justification": "'Head Injury (c. 2020) - Following an assault, required hospital admission.' Source (Patient consultation.pdf) 'Traumatic brain injury: Damaged brain tissue (lesion) from an injury to the right frontal lobe, the left temporal lobe or the left parietal lobe may lead to Fregoli syndrome symptoms. Certain parts of your brain are responsible for allowing you to recognize and identify others.' https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/fregoli-syndrome",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
}
}
|
documents/1436/Patient consultation.pdf
|
1,439
|
Medicine
|
A 7-year-old male with asthma comes to the clinic to recheck his asthma. Please refer to History details.pdf for further details on the patient's history.
What is the likely reason for the patient's poor asthma control? What is the most optimal option in this situation? Provide the rationale.
Based on the answer above, propose an asthma action plan for the patient with a specific focus on the inhaled medications to be taken in the green and yellow zones.
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "States that Pulmicort Flexhaler is difficult to administer for a young child.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Research indicates that poor inhaler technique is common among children. Specifically, observational studies have found that only 8\u201322% of children with asthma use their inhalers correctly' 'Further, proper technique varies according to patients' age and abilities. For instance, younger patients require both a mask and spacers with MDIs, while older patients can effectively use just a spacer with MDIs.' https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8018416/",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "States that Pulmicort Flexhaler is an inhaled steroid.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Pulmicort Flexhaler (budesonide) is an inhaled corticosteroid. It's used in adults and children for the maintenance treatment of asthma.' https://www.goodrx.com/pulmicort/what-is?srsltid=AfmBOopbf_YCQlL_bC7vuvxIPkqgQvp_Z0XcjxwZrA21cE-VgRpRnvKw",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "States that a difficult Pulmicort Flexhaler administration can lead to inadequate medication delivery to the lungs.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'However, for inhaled medications to be effective, their fine particles must be delivered directly into the airways. It is critical that each person with a respiratory condition is able to use their inhaler correctly to support disease management. Improper inhaler technique (also termed inhaler misuse) is a key reason that inhaled medicines are not effective, as the medicine does not reach the airways' https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8018416/",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "States that inadequate inhaled steroid delivery can lead to poor asthma control.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'However, for inhaled medications to be effective, their fine particles must be delivered directly into the airways. It is critical that each person with a respiratory condition is able to use their inhaler correctly to support disease management. Improper inhaler technique (also termed inhaler misuse) is a key reason that inhaled medicines are not effective, as the medicine does not reach the airways' https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8018416/",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "States that difficult Pulmicort Flexhaler administration likely caused the patient's poor asthma control.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Research indicates that poor inhaler technique is common among children. Specifically, observational studies have found that only 8\u201322% of children with asthma use their inhalers correctly' 'Further, proper technique varies according to patients' age and abilities. For instance, younger patients require both a mask and spacers with MDIs, while older patients can effectively use just a spacer with MDIs.' https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8018416/",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1,
2,
3,
4
]
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "States that a Pulmicort Flexhaler is the maintenance component of the patient's current combination inhaler therapy.",
"sources": "History details.pdf",
"justification": "From the History details.pdf: the patient is currently using Pulmicort Flexhaler. 'Pulmicort Flexhaler (budesonide) is an inhaled corticosteroid. It's used in adults and children for the maintenance treatment of asthma.' https://www.goodrx.com/pulmicort/what-is?srsltid=AfmBOopbf_YCQlL_bC7vuvxIPkqgQvp_Z0XcjxwZrA21cE-VgRpRnvKw",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "States that an albuterol inhaler is the reliever component of the patient's current combination inhaler therapy.",
"sources": "History details.pdf",
"justification": "From the History details.pdf: the patient is currently using an albuterol inhaler. 'Drug Name: Albuterol Sulfate Brand Name: ProAir\u00ae HFA Medicine Use: Quick-relief Type of Medicine: Short-acting beta agonist' https://aafa.org/asthma-medicine/albuterol-sulfate-proair-hfa/",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "States that the patient's asthma is uncontrolled with the current combination inhaler therapy.",
"sources": "History details.pdf",
"justification": "From the History details.pdf: the patient is currently using both a Pulmicort Flexhaler and an albuterol inhaler. In addition, the patient has frequent wheezing with activity, daily symptoms, and nightly symptoms affecting sleep, despite daily inhaled corticosteroids and short-acting beta2-agonist relievers. This is uncontrolled asthma. 'Uncontrolled: Asthma is classified as uncontrolled if there are 3 or more of the features of partially controlled asthma at least 3 times a week and asthma attacks are occurring weekly.' 'Partly controlled: At this level, daytime symptoms are occurring more than twice a week, sometimes at night and occasionally they limit activity. Quick relief medicines are needed more than twice a week. Peak flow rate is less than 80 percent of the personal best and asthma attacks occur at least once a year.' 'Individuals whose asthma is uncontrolled on maintenance ICS-LABA with SABA as quick-relief therapy should receive the preferred SMART if possible before moving to a higher step of therapy.' https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Asthma%20Clinicians%20Guide%20508_02-03-21.pdf",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 9": {
"description": "States that the patient's asthma is categorized as moderate persistent asthma due to the patient's daily symptoms.",
"sources": "History details.pdf",
"justification": "From the History details.pdf: the patient is having a cough every night. A patient having daily asthma symptoms has moderate persistent asthma. See table 3 from asthma severity.pdf 'Asthma is classified as moderate persistent if symptoms occur daily. Flare-ups occur and usually last several days. Coughing and wheezing may disrupt the child's normal activities and make it difficult to sleep. Nighttime flare-ups may occur more than once a week. In moderate persistent asthma, lung function is roughly between 60% and 80% of normal, without treatment.' https://www.healthychildren.org/English/health-issues/conditions/allergies-asthma/Pages/Mild-Moderate-Severe-Asthma-What-Do-Grades-Mean.aspx",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 10": {
"description": "Recommends switching the patient to SMART therapy (single maintenance and reliever therapy).",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'In individuals ages 4 years and older with moderate to severe persistent asthma, the Expert Panel recommends ICS-formoterol in a single inhaler used as both daily controller and reliever therapy compared to either a higher dose ICS as daily controller therapy and SABA for quick relief therapy or the same dose ICS-LABA as daily controller therapy and SABA for quick-relief therapy.' https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Asthma%20Clinicians%20Guide%20508_02-03-21.pdf 'For individuals with moderate to severe persistent asthma already taking low- or medium-dose ICS, the preferred treatment is a single inhaler with ICS-formoterol (referred to as single maintenance and reliever therapy, or 'SMART') used both daily and as needed.' https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Asthma%20Clinicians%20Guide%20508_02-03-21.pdf",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
5,
6,
7,
8,
9
]
},
"criterion 11": {
"description": "Recommends using Symbicort as SMART therapy.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'For US clinicians, although the combination of budesonide-formoterol is approved for daily use by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for individuals aged 4 years and older (marketed as Symbicort), SMART regimens are not FDA-approved for any age group.' https://www.jaci-inpractice.org/article/S2213-2198(21)01128-4/fulltext",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
10
]
},
"criterion 12": {
"description": "States that Symbicort is a single metered dose inhaler.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'SYMBICORT is available as a metered-dose inhaler containing a combination of budesonide (80 or 160 mcg) and formoterol (4.5 mcg) as an inhalation aerosol in the following two strengths: 80/4.5 and 160/4.5.' https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2010/021929s021lbl.pdf",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
11
]
},
"criterion 13": {
"description": "States that an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) is the maintenance component of Symbicort.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Target population: Individuals 4 years and older with a severe exacerbation in the prior year are particularly good candidates for SMART to reduce exacerbations. \u2022 Treatment: Inhaled ICS-formoterol in a single inhaler. This form of therapy has only been studied with formoterol as the long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA).' https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Asthma%20Clinicians%20Guide%20508_02-03-21.pdf",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
11
]
},
"criterion 14": {
"description": "States that a long acting beta2 agonist (LABA) is the reliever component of Symbicort.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Target population: Individuals 4 years and older with a severe exacerbation in the prior year are particularly good candidates for SMART to reduce exacerbations. \u2022 Treatment: Inhaled ICS-formoterol in a single inhaler. This form of therapy has only been studied with formoterol as the long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA).' https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Asthma%20Clinicians%20Guide%20508_02-03-21.pdf",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
11
]
},
"criterion 15": {
"description": "States that a metered dose inhaler (MDI) is used with a spacer.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Further, proper technique varies according to patients' age and abilities. For instance, younger patients require both a mask and spacers with MDIs, while older patients can effectively use just a spacer with MDIs.' https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8018416/",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
12
]
},
"criterion 16": {
"description": "States that an MDI with spacer is easier to administer to a young child.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Further, proper technique varies according to patients' age and abilities. For instance, younger patients require both a mask and spacers with MDIs, while older patients can effectively use just a spacer with MDIs.' https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8018416/",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
15
]
},
"criterion 17": {
"description": "Concludes that Symbicort with a spacer is easier to administer than Pulmicort Flexhaler in a young child.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Further, proper technique varies according to patients' age and abilities. For instance, younger patients require both a mask and spacers with MDIs, while older patients can effectively use just a spacer with MDIs.' https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8018416/",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
16
]
},
"criterion 18": {
"description": "States that Symbicort dose is 80/4.5 mcg.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Per the recommended SMART asthma action plan template, for daily maintenance therapy in the green zone, 1 to 2 puffs of Symbicort may be used once or twice a day to achieve control of asthma based on clinical judgement. In this patient, based on severity of clinical symptoms, 2 puffs twice a day was chosen. It can be titrated down as he improves. See the approved asthma action plan template in figure one below. https://www.jaci-inpractice.org/cms/10.1016/j.jaip.2021.10.011/asset/a4913515-c42e-4096-ab9d-1dd931d7be76/main.assets/gr1_lrg.jpg https://www.jaci-inpractice.org/article/S2213-2198(21)01128-4/fulltext",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
11
]
},
"criterion 19": {
"description": "States that 2 puffs of Symbicort should be given per dose in the green zone.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Per the recommended SMART asthma action plan template, for daily maintenance therapy in the green zone, 1 to 2 puffs of Symbicort may be used once or twice a day to achieve control of asthma based on clinical judgement. In this patient, based on severity of clinical symptoms, 2 puffs twice a day was chosen. It can be titrated down as he improves. See the approved asthma action plan template in figure one below. https://www.jaci-inpractice.org/cms/10.1016/j.jaip.2021.10.011/asset/a4913515-c42e-4096-ab9d-1dd931d7be76/main.assets/gr1_lrg.jpg https://www.jaci-inpractice.org/article/S2213-2198(21)01128-4/fulltext",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
11
]
},
"criterion 20": {
"description": "States that Symbicort should be given twice a day in the green zone.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Per the recommended SMART asthma action plan template, for daily maintenance therapy in the green zone, 1 to 2 puffs of Symbicort may be used once or twice a day to achieve control of asthma based on clinical judgement. In this patient, based on severity of clinical symptoms, 2 puffs twice a day was chosen. It can be titrated down as he improves. See the approved asthma action plan template in figure one below. https://www.jaci-inpractice.org/cms/10.1016/j.jaip.2021.10.011/asset/a4913515-c42e-4096-ab9d-1dd931d7be76/main.assets/gr1_lrg.jpg https://www.jaci-inpractice.org/article/S2213-2198(21)01128-4/fulltext",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
11
]
},
"criterion 21": {
"description": "States that the green zone dosing of Symbicort should be continued in the yellow zone.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Per the recommended SMART asthma action plan template in figure one below, the green zone medications should be continued in the yellow zone. https://www.jaci-inpractice.org/cms/10.1016/j.jaip.2021.10.011/asset/a4913515-c42e-4096-ab9d-1dd931d7be76/main.assets/gr1_lrg.jpg https://www.jaci-inpractice.org/article/S2213-2198(21)01128-4/fulltext",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
19,
20
]
},
"criterion 22": {
"description": "States that additional dosing of Symbicort should be given in the yellow zone.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Per the recommended SMART asthma action plan template in figure one below, '1 puff of inhaled Symbicort may be added whenever needed to relieve symptoms' in the yellow zone. The direction of every 4 hours was added to limit confusion and overdosing of the medication. This would not be contradictory to the recommendations. https://www.jaci-inpractice.org/cms/10.1016/j.jaip.2021.10.011/asset/a4913515-c42e-4096-ab9d-1dd931d7be76/main.assets/gr1_lrg.jpg https://www.jaci-inpractice.org/article/S2213-2198(21)01128-4/fulltext",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 23": {
"description": "States that 1 additional puff per dose of Symbicort may be given in the yellow zone.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Per the recommended SMART asthma action plan template in figure one below, '1 puff of inhaled Symbicort may be added whenever needed to relieve symptoms' in the yellow zone. The direction of every 4 hours was added to limit confusion and overdosing of the medication. This would not be contradictory to the recommendations. https://www.jaci-inpractice.org/cms/10.1016/j.jaip.2021.10.011/asset/a4913515-c42e-4096-ab9d-1dd931d7be76/main.assets/gr1_lrg.jpg https://www.jaci-inpractice.org/article/S2213-2198(21)01128-4/fulltext",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
22
]
},
"criterion 24": {
"description": "States that additional Symbicort should be given every 4 hours as needed in the yellow zone.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Per the recommended SMART asthma action plan template in figure one below, '1 puff of inhaled Symbicort may be added whenever needed to relieve symptoms' in the yellow zone. The direction of every 4 hours was added to limit confusion and overdosing of the medication. This would not be contradictory to the recommendations. https://www.jaci-inpractice.org/cms/10.1016/j.jaip.2021.10.011/asset/a4913515-c42e-4096-ab9d-1dd931d7be76/main.assets/gr1_lrg.jpg https://www.jaci-inpractice.org/article/S2213-2198(21)01128-4/fulltext",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
22
]
},
"criterion 25": {
"description": "States that the maximum daily dose of Symbicort in the yellow zone is 8 puffs.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Per the recommended SMART asthma action plan template in figure one below, the maximum daily dose of Symbicort is 8 puffs. https://www.jaci-inpractice.org/cms/10.1016/j.jaip.2021.10.011/asset/a4913515-c42e-4096-ab9d-1dd931d7be76/main.assets/gr1_lrg.jpg https://www.jaci-inpractice.org/article/S2213-2198(21)01128-4/fulltext",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
21,
22
]
}
}
|
documents/1439/History details.pdf
|
1,452
|
Medicine
|
A 37-year-old farmer presents to the clinic for management of seborrheic dermatitis. For the past 3 months, he has experienced significant scalp itch. He has tried several over-the-counter anti-dandruff shampoos without success. His family physician prescribed Nizoral shampoo daily, which he used for a few weeks but discontinued because it caused his scalp to become drier and itchier. Currently, he is using betamethasone valerate 0.1% scalp lotion, which provides relief during use, but the rash recurs after stopping.
On review of systems, he mentions that he is a smoker and is currently being investigated for suspected COPD due to a persistent cough and shortness of breath. He has also been taking ibuprofen and acetaminophen frequently for joint pain and his antihistamines for allergic rhinitis.
Please refer to the attachment (Patient info.pdf) for further patient information to answer the following questions:
What is the diagnosis that best fits this patient's case? Justify your reasoning. List at least three expected findings on the skin biopsy of the patient's scalp.
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "States that the patient's joint pain is associated with dermatomyositis (DM).",
"sources": "Patient infor.pdf",
"justification": "From the Patient infor.pdf: 'He takes ibuprofen and acetaminophen frequently for joint pain and antihistamines for his seasonal allergies.' 'Dermatomyositis can cause non-erosive polyarthritis or arthralgia of the small joints of the hands. Patients may present with joint pain or swelling.' https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK558917/",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "States that the patient's hyperkeratosis palmar is associated with DM.",
"sources": "Patient info.pdf",
"justification": "From the Patient infor.pdf: 'There is also visible fissuring and hyperkeratosis on the patient's hands.' 'Mechanic's hands: hyperkeratotic, cracked horizontal lines on the palmar and lateral aspects of the fingers.' https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK558917/",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "States that another term for hyperkeratosis palmar is mechanic's hands.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Mechanic's hands: hyperkeratotic, cracked horizontal lines on the palmar and lateral aspects of the fingers.' https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK558917/",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "States that the patient's erythema scalp is associated with DM.",
"sources": "Patient info.pdf",
"justification": "From the Patient infor.pdf: 'Diffuse scale and erythema noted over the scalp.' 'Scaling diffuse erythema of the scalp consistent with scalp dermatomyositis.' https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/fullarticle/712173",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "States that the patient's scale scalp is associated with DM.",
"sources": "Patient info.pdf",
"justification": "From the Patient infor.pdf: 'Diffuse scale and erythema noted over the scalp.' 'Scaling diffuse erythema of the scalp consistent with scalp dermatomyositis.' https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/fullarticle/712173",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "Recognizes that the patient's reduced DLCO (Diffusion Capacity of the Lungs for Carbon Monoxide testing) is consistent with interstitial lung disease (ILD).",
"sources": "Patient info.pdf",
"justification": "From the Patient infor.pdf: 'DLCO: mildly reduced, between 60% and 75% of predicted value.' 'Patients may present with exertional dyspnea, exercise intolerance, and non-productive cough due to underlying interstitial lung disease (ILD).' https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK558917/",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "States that ILD is associated with DM.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Patients may present with exertional dyspnea, exercise intolerance, and non-productive cough due to underlying interstitial lung disease (ILD).' https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK558917/",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
6
]
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "Concludes that the patient's clinical presentation is concerning for DM.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Based on the patient's clinical findings, including scalp dermatitis, hyperkeratosis palmar, joint pain, and dyspnea, the patient's clinical presentation is concerning for DM.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1,
4,
5,
7,
2
]
},
"criterion 9": {
"description": "Lists at least 3 of the following DM findings associated with the patient's scalp biopsy: epidermal atrophy, interface dermatitis, perivascular lymphocytes, or increased dermal mucin.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'On light microscopy, DM skin lesions usually demonstrate mild atrophy of the epidermis with vacuolar changes in the basal keratinocyte layer, as well as a perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate in the dermis [31]. This is referred to as interface dermatitis. In addition, patients with DM frequently have increased dermal mucin in the dermis.' https://www.uptodate.com/contents/diagnosis-and-differential-diagnosis-of-dermatomyositis-and-polymyositis-in-adults",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
8
]
}
}
|
documents/1452/Patient info.pdf
|
1,476
|
Medicine
|
An 8-year-old female presents to a pediatric clinic with concerns of a possible UTI. Her symptoms include pain on urination for 2 days and frequent urination without fever, vomiting, abdominal pain or blood in the urine. There are no other concerns. This is her first visit to the clinic, and she is here with her aunt. The front desk sends you a message to notify you that her aunt does not have consent from the child’s legal guardian authorizing the visit.
Questions:
How should the pediatrician categorize the care the patient is seeking in determining whether or not to provide care to this patient? Please explain your reasoning.
Based on the above history and the message from the front desk (attached in Patient history.pdf), may care be denied to the patient?
Assuming the aunt's identity has been verified, how may the practice mitigate the risks posed by this situation?
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "States the patient presents with symptoms of a possible lower urinary tract infection (UTI).",
"sources": "",
"justification": "The patient is an 8-year-old female who has pain on urination and urinary frequency without fever, abdominal pain, vomiting, or blood in stools or any other symptoms. If she has a UTI, it would be consistent with a lower tract UTI. At this presentation, symptoms are minor. 'Lower UTIs typically cause symptoms such as: more frequent urination pain, burning, or other discomfort during urination a sudden urge to urinate (even if you just went) feeling unable to empty the bladder fully urine that's cloudy or slightly colored with blood urine that smells more pungent than usual abdominal or pelvic pain' https://www.healthline.com/health/upper-uti-vs-lower-uti#symptoms",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
2
]
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "States the patient's pain on urination is consistent with a lower UTI.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "The patient is an 8-year-old female who has pain on urination and urinary frequency without fever, abdominal pain, vomiting, or blood in the urine, or any other symptoms. If she has a UTI, it would be consistent with a lower tract UTI. At this presentation, symptoms are minor. 'Lower UTIs typically cause symptoms such as: more frequent urination pain, burning, or other discomfort during urination a sudden urge to urinate (even if you just went) feeling unable to empty the bladder fully urine that's cloudy or slightly colored with blood urine that smells more pungent than usual abdominal or pelvic pain' https://www.healthline.com/health/upper-uti-vs-lower-uti#symptoms",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "States the patient's urinary frequency is consistent with a lower UTI.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "The patient is an 8-year-old female who has pain on urination and urinary frequency without fever, abdominal pain, vomiting, or blood in stools or any other symptoms. If she has a UTI, it would be consistent with a lower tract UTI. At this presentation, symptoms are minor. 'Lower UTIs typically cause symptoms such as: more frequent urination pain, burning, or other discomfort during urination a sudden urge to urinate (even if you just went) feeling unable to empty the bladder fully urine that's cloudy or slightly colored with blood urine that smells more pungent than usual abdominal or pelvic pain' https://www.healthline.com/health/upper-uti-vs-lower-uti#symptoms",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "States the patient's lack of fever is consistent with a lower UTI.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "The presence of fever may be suggestive of an upper urinary tract infection which would be more urgent. 'Upper UTIs typically cause symptoms such as: pain in the lower back or side fever or chills nausea or vomiting brain fog or overall restlessness bloody urine' https://www.healthline.com/health/upper-uti-vs-lower-uti#symptoms",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "States the patient's lack of vomiting is consistent with a lower UTI.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "The presence of vomiting may be suggestive of an upper urinary tract infection or a less than straightforward lower UTI. Vomiting with possible UTI would be urgent. 'Upper UTIs typically cause symptoms such as: pain in the lower back or side fever or chills nausea or vomiting brain fog or overall restlessness bloody urine' https://www.healthline.com/health/upper-uti-vs-lower-uti#symptoms",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "States the patient's lack of abdominal pain is consistent with a lower UTI.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "The presence of abdominal pain may make the presentation more concerning depending on the severity.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "States the patient's lack of blood in the urine is consistent with a lower UTI.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "The presence of blood in the urine would make the presentation more concerning and more urgent. 'Upper UTIs typically cause symptoms such as: pain in the lower back or side fever or chills nausea or vomiting brain fog or overall restlessness bloody urine' https://www.healthline.com/health/upper-uti-vs-lower-uti#symptoms",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "States a lower UTI is considered a minor illness.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'The AMA defines an acute uncomplicated illness or injury as a 'recent or new short-term problem with low risk of morbidity'. A full recovery is expected without residual functionality impairment. This could also be a self-limited or minor condition showing no improvement with prescribed course of treatment. (e.g., cystitis, allergic rhinitis, or a simple sprain)' https://namas.co/acute-uncomplicated-vs-complicated-illness-or-injury/ 'Cystitis' is a lower urinary tract infection.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1
]
},
"criterion 9": {
"description": "States that the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) defines minor illnesses as nonurgent pediatric care.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'For the purposes of this clinical report, nonurgent pediatric care is defined as preventive medicine (ie, services encompassed in pediatric health supervision visits, including immunizations and screening tests) and outpatient medical encounters for minor illnesses or injuries.' https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/139/2/e20163911/60328/Consent-by-Proxy-for-Nonurgent-Pediatric-Care",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
8
]
},
"criterion 10": {
"description": "Concludes that the patient presents for nonurgent pediatric care.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'For the purposes of this clinical report, nonurgent pediatric care is defined as preventive medicine (ie, services encompassed in pediatric health supervision visits, including immunizations and screening tests) and outpatient medical encounters for minor illnesses or injuries.' https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/139/2/e20163911/60328/Consent-by-Proxy-for-Nonurgent-Pediatric-Care",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
8,
9,
1
]
},
"criterion 11": {
"description": "States that a pediatrician can legally deny care for a nonurgent visit until consent is obtained.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Because there is no legal requirement to provide nonurgent pediatric care to a minor without the consent of an LAR, pediatricians who choose to treat such patients should be aware of potential liability risks.' https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/139/2/e20163911/60328/Consent-by-Proxy-for-Nonurgent-Pediatric-Care",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
10,
15,
13
]
},
"criterion 12": {
"description": "States that the patient's age qualifies her as a minor patient.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Physicians and medical researchers have a moral and legal obligation to obtain informed consent. Informed consent must include the patient being competent and understanding the options, risks, and benefits. For pediatric patients, parental consent, or consent from a surrogate, must be obtained for medical procedures, treatment, or research.' https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK555889/ 'Because there is no legal requirement to provide nonurgent pediatric care to a minor without the consent of an LAR, pediatricians who choose to treat such patients should be aware of potential liability risks.' https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/139/2/e20163911/60328/Consent-by-Proxy-for-Nonurgent-Pediatric-Care",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 13": {
"description": "States that a minor cannot consent to treatment on their own.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Physicians and medical researchers have a moral and legal obligation to obtain informed consent. Informed consent must include the patient being competent and understanding the options, risks, and benefits. For pediatric patients, parental consent, or consent from a surrogate, must be obtained for medical procedures, treatment, or research.' https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK555889/ 'Because there is no legal requirement to provide nonurgent pediatric care to a minor without the consent of an LAR, pediatricians who choose to treat such patients should be aware of potential liability risks.' https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/139/2/e20163911/60328/Consent-by-Proxy-for-Nonurgent-Pediatric-Care",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
12
]
},
"criterion 14": {
"description": "States the aunt does not have court assigned guardianship at this time.",
"sources": "Patient history.pdf",
"justification": "This was stated in Patient History.pdf",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 15": {
"description": "States that the aunt cannot provide consent by proxy as a legally authorized representative (LAR).",
"sources": "Patient history.pdf",
"justification": "Due to the mother being in prison, the aunt was unable to provide a consent by proxy from a LAR. Refer to Patient history.pdf. 'A Legally authorized representative (LAR) is an individual or judicial or other body authorized under applicable law to make decisions on behalf of another individual. LARs may, for example, provide consent on behalf of a prospective subject to the subject's participation in research. The terms surrogate decision maker or surrogate consent are also sometimes used.' Source: https://www.washington.edu/research/glossary/legally-authorized-representative-lar/",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
14
]
},
"criterion 16": {
"description": "States that the pediatrician may use their best judgment in deciding to treat the patient.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'The pediatrician should use his or her best judgment in deciding whether to postpone care until a guardian can be appointed or to render the care.' https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/139/2/e20163911/60328/Consent-by-Proxy-for-Nonurgent-Pediatric-Care",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 17": {
"description": "States that the pediatrician should carefully document the visit.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'If care is provided, careful documentation of the circumstances is recommended.' https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/139/2/e20163911/60328/Consent-by-Proxy-for-Nonurgent-Pediatric-Care",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 18": {
"description": "States that the pediatrician should notify child protective services (CPS).",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Pediatricians should notify child protective services when a child needs a legal guardian.' https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/139/2/e20163911/60328/Consent-by-Proxy-for-Nonurgent-Pediatric-Care",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 19": {
"description": "States that the pediatrician should discuss the need to obtain court appointed legal guardianship with the aunt.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Since the mother was just arrested a few days ago, the aunt may not yet have made a request to the court for guardianship. She should be encouraged to do so. That way, the child's medical care will not be hindered in the future. 'For some children, a request has not yet been made to the court for a guardian to be appointed. For this reason, authority to consent to these children's nonurgent care may be unclear' https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/139/2/e20163911/60328/Consent-by-Proxy-for-Nonurgent-Pediatric-Care",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
14
]
},
"criterion 20": {
"description": "States that the pediatrician should document that the patient's history may not be accurate.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Pediatricians should be cautious about proxy situations if they are providing initial care for the child. Medical decisions may be made on the basis of information obtained from the proxy that may not be entirely accurate. Similarly, medical decisions may be made on the basis of follow-up visits that are contingent on the accuracy of the information from the documentation during the initial visit.' https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/139/2/e20163911/60328/Consent-by-Proxy-for-Nonurgent-Pediatric-Care",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 21": {
"description": "States the pediatrician should flag the chart as an initial visit without access to a LAR.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Pediatricians should be cautious about proxy situations if they are providing initial care for the child. Medical decisions may be made on the basis of information obtained from the proxy that may not be entirely accurate. Similarly, medical decisions may be made on the basis of follow-up visits that are contingent on the accuracy of the information from the documentation during the initial visit.' 'Pediatricians who decide to treat children under these circumstances may want to consider 'flagging' such charts so that baseline information obtained from the initial visit can be later verified by the LAR. This flagging procedure would be especially important for details such as medication allergy and family history.' https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/139/2/e20163911/60328/Consent-by-Proxy-for-Nonurgent-Pediatric-Care",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
20
]
},
"criterion 22": {
"description": "States that baseline information obtained at the initial visit should be verified with the LAR at a subsequent visit.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Pediatricians should be cautious about proxy situations if they are providing initial care for the child. Medical decisions may be made on the basis of information obtained from the proxy that may not be entirely accurate. Similarly, medical decisions may be made on the basis of follow-up visits that are contingent on the accuracy of the information from the documentation during the initial visit.' 'Pediatricians who decide to treat children under these circumstances may want to consider 'flagging' such charts so that baseline information obtained from the initial visit can be later verified by the LAR. This flagging procedure would be especially important for details such as medication allergy and family history.' https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/139/2/e20163911/60328/Consent-by-Proxy-for-Nonurgent-Pediatric-Care",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
20,
21
]
}
}
|
documents/1476/Patient history.pdf
|
1,477
|
Medicine
|
Hematoxylin and Eosin (H&E) sections of a brain tumour from a 48-year-old man are submitted for pathological examination. The patient presents with a 5-year history of seizures. MRI brain revealed a left temporal subcortical T2-high, T1-low lesion. Microscopic findings are described in the attached document. Please describe the most likely diagnosis and the expected immunoprofile.
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "Recognizes that the patient is 48-years-old.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "The prompt states: 'H&E sections of a brain tumour from a 48 year old man are submitted for pathological examination.'",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "Recognizes that the patient presented with seizures.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "The prompt states: 'The patient presents with a 5-year history of seizures.'",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "Recognizes that the tumor is in the temporal lobe on MRI.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "The prompt states: 'MRI brain revealed a left temporal subcortical T2-high, T1-low lesion.'",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "Recognizes that the tumor is subcortically based on MRI.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "The prompt states: 'MRI brain revealed a left temporal subcortical T2-high, T1-low lesion.'",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "Recognizes that the tumor is T2-high on MRI.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "The prompt states: 'MRI brain revealed a left temporal subcortical T2-high, T1-low lesion.'",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "Recognizes vacuolated tumor cells on histology.",
"sources": "Attached document - Patient_B.pdf",
"justification": "The attached document states: 'Microscopy reveals a circumscribed moderately cellular tumour composed of medium sized cells with prominent cytoplasmic vacuolations.'",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "Recognizes vacuolated tumor matrix on histology.",
"sources": "Attached document - Patient_B.pdf",
"justification": "The attached document states: 'The tumour matrix also appears vacuolated.'",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "Recognizes that the tumor shows no high-grade histological features.",
"sources": "Attached document - Patient_B.pdf",
"justification": "The attached document states: 'The tumour shows no high-grade histological features.'",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 9": {
"description": "States that the most likely diagnosis is multinodular and vacuolating glioneuronal tumor (MVNT).",
"sources": "",
"justification": "There are several clinical, radiological and histological features that point to a diagnosis of multinodular vacuolating neuronal tumour. These are summarised. The patient age of 48-years is in keeping with MVNT. 'Although this tumor predominantly develops in adults (with a median age of 43 years, ranging from 21 to 71 years) [10,29], rare pediatric and adolescent cases have been reported (with a median age of 11.5 years, ranging from 6 to 19 years) [8,9,10,11,24,30].' Calandrelli, R.; Mallio, C.A.; Bernetti, C.; Pilato, F. Multinodular and Vacuolating Neuronal Tumors: Imaging Features, Diagnosis, and Management Challenges. Diagnostics 2025, 15, 334. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics15030334 The clinical presentation with seizures is common in MVNT. 'Seizures or their equivalents, along with non-focal headaches such as hypoesthesia, loss of postural tone, contact rupture, cognitive impairment, history of migraine, multiple sclerosis, paresthesia, and vertigo, are the most common neurological complaints for which an MRI is requested [21,29]. Calandrelli, R.; Mallio, C.A.; Bernetti, C.; Pilato, F. Multinodular and Vacuolating Neuronal Tumors: Imaging Features, Diagnosis, and Management Challenges. Diagnostics 2025, 15, 334. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics15030334 'The primary site of tumor onset is focused in the cerebral hemispheres, most commonly affecting the temporal and parietal lobes, with less frequent involvement of the frontal and occipital lobes [2,11]. ' 'The lesions are located along the subcortical ribbon and the superficial subcortical white matter, following the gyral contour [10,31]. Cortical involvement has been observed in only 10% of MVNT [38]. ' 'The lesions may appear iso- to hypointense relative to the cortex on T1-weighted images and hyperintense to markedly hyperintense on T2-weighted images' World Health Organization, issuing body, et al. Central Nervous System Tumours. 5th edition., International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization, 2021. 'Histopathologically, MVNTs are characterized by multiple discrete and coalescing islands or nodules of immature neuron-like cells with large eosinophilic vacuolated cytoplasms and prominent round nucleoli [2,3,4,36]. These cells lack a specific orientation and display a ganglionic morphology, with occasional binucleated cells [29]. Among these ambiguous tumor cells, some glial features can also be observed, resembling oligodendroglial and astrocytic cells [6,9,43]; moreover, peri-cellular vacuolation and glial reaction around the nodules may also be present [2,3,4,17].' World Health Organization, issuing body, et al. Central Nervous System Tumours. 5th edition., International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization, 2021.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
11,
12,
13
]
},
"criterion 10": {
"description": "States that mutinodular and vacuolating neuronal tumor (MVNT) is a CNS WHO Grade 1 tumor.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "In the 2021 WHO revision of CNS tumors, these tumors were considered grade 1 neoplasms in the 'Neuronal and Glioneuronal Tumors' section. World Health Organization, issuing body, et al. Central Nervous System Tumours. 5th edition., International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization, 2021.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
9
]
},
"criterion 11": {
"description": "Explains that the clinical findings are consistent with multinodular and vacuolating glioneuronal tumor (MVNT).",
"sources": "",
"justification": "The patient age of 48-years is in keeping with MVNT. 'Although this tumor predominantly develops in adults (with a median age of 43 years, ranging from 21 to 71 years) [10,29], rare pediatric and adolescent cases have been reported (with a median age of 11.5 years, ranging from 6 to 19 years) [8,9,10,11,24,30].' Calandrelli, R.; Mallio, C.A.; Bernetti, C.; Pilato, F. Multinodular and Vacuolating Neuronal Tumors: Imaging Features, Diagnosis, and Management Challenges. Diagnostics 2025, 15, 334. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics15030334 The clinical presentation with seizures is common in MVNT. 'Seizures or their equivalents, along with non-focal headaches such as hypoesthesia, loss of postural tone, contact rupture, cognitive impairment, history of migraine, multiple sclerosis, paresthesia, and vertigo, are the most common neurological complaints for which an MRI is requested [21,29]. Calandrelli, R.; Mallio, C.A.; Bernetti, C.; Pilato, F. Multinodular and Vacuolating Neuronal Tumors: Imaging Features, Diagnosis, and Management Challenges. Diagnostics 2025, 15, 334. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics15030334",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1,
2
]
},
"criterion 12": {
"description": "Explains that the radiological findings are consistent with multinodular and vacuolating glioneuronal tumor (MVNT).",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'The primary site of tumor onset is focused in the cerebral hemispheres, most commonly affecting the temporal and parietal lobes, with less frequent involvement of the frontal and occipital lobes [2,11]. ' 'The lesions are located along the subcortical ribbon and the superficial subcortical white matter, following the gyral contour [10,31]. Cortical involvement has been observed in only 10% of MVNT [38]. ' 'The lesions may appear iso- to hypointense relative to the cortex on T1-weighted images and hyperintense to markedly hyperintense on T2-weighted images' World Health Organization, issuing body, et al. Central Nervous System Tumours. 5th edition., International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization, 2021.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
3,
4,
5
]
},
"criterion 13": {
"description": "Explains that the histological findings are consistent with multinodular and vacuolating glioneuronal tumor (MVNT).",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Histopathologically, MVNTs are characterized by multiple discrete and coalescing islands or nodules of immature neuron-like cells with large eosinophilic vacuolated cytoplasms and prominent round nucleoli [2,3,4,36]. These cells lack a specific orientation and display a ganglionic morphology, with occasional binucleated cells [29]. Among these ambiguous tumor cells, some glial features can also be observed, resembling oligodendroglial and astrocytic cells [6,9,43]; moreover, peri-cellular vacuolation and glial reaction around the nodules may also be present [2,3,4,17].' World Health Organization, issuing body, et al. Central Nervous System Tumours. 5th edition., International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization, 2021.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
6,
7,
8
]
},
"criterion 14": {
"description": "Identifies Olig2 as part of the expected immunoprofile.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Vacuolated tumor cells were robustly positive for \u03b1-INA and Olig2 and at least partly positive for synaptophysin and MAP2, but negative for Neu-N, nestin and CD34. GFAP and vimentin were expressed in reactive astrocytes but not in tumor cells.' Choi, Euno et al. 'Clinicopathological and molecular analysis of multinodular and vacuolating neuronal tumors of the cerebrum.' Human pathology vol. 86 (2019): 203-212. doi:10.1016/j.humpath.2018.11.028",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
9
]
},
"criterion 15": {
"description": "States that Olig2 is positive in multinodular and vacuolating glioneuronal tumor (MVNT).",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Vacuolated tumor cells were robustly positive for \u03b1-INA and Olig2 and at least partly positive for synaptophysin and MAP2, but negative for Neu-N, nestin and CD34. GFAP and vimentin were expressed in reactive astrocytes but not in tumor cells.' Choi, Euno et al. 'Clinicopathological and molecular analysis of multinodular and vacuolating neuronal tumors of the cerebrum.' Human pathology vol. 86 (2019): 203-212. doi:10.1016/j.humpath.2018.11.028",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
14
]
},
"criterion 16": {
"description": "Identifies synaptophysin as part of the expected immunoprofile.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Vacuolated tumor cells were robustly positive for \u03b1-INA and Olig2 and at least partly positive for synaptophysin and MAP2, but negative for Neu-N, nestin and CD34. GFAP and vimentin were expressed in reactive astrocytes but not in tumor cells.' Choi, Euno et al. 'Clinicopathological and molecular analysis of multinodular and vacuolating neuronal tumors of the cerebrum.' Human pathology vol. 86 (2019): 203-212. doi:10.1016/j.humpath.2018.11.028",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
9
]
},
"criterion 17": {
"description": "States that synaptophysin is positive in multinodular and vacuolating glioneuronal tumor (MVNT).",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Vacuolated tumor cells were robustly positive for \u03b1-INA and Olig2 and at least partly positive for synaptophysin and MAP2, but negative for Neu-N, nestin and CD34. GFAP and vimentin were expressed in reactive astrocytes but not in tumor cells.' Choi, Euno et al. 'Clinicopathological and molecular analysis of multinodular and vacuolating neuronal tumors of the cerebrum.' Human pathology vol. 86 (2019): 203-212. doi:10.1016/j.humpath.2018.11.028",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
16
]
},
"criterion 18": {
"description": "Identifies GFAP as part of the expected immunoprofile.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Vacuolated tumor cells were robustly positive for \u03b1-INA and Olig2 and at least partly positive for synaptophysin and MAP2, but negative for Neu-N, nestin and CD34. GFAP and vimentin were expressed in reactive astrocytes but not in tumor cells.' Choi, Euno et al. 'Clinicopathological and molecular analysis of multinodular and vacuolating neuronal tumors of the cerebrum.' Human pathology vol. 86 (2019): 203-212. doi:10.1016/j.humpath.2018.11.028",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
9
]
},
"criterion 19": {
"description": "States that GFAP is negative in multinodular and vacuolating glioneuronal tumor (MVNT).",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Vacuolated tumor cells were robustly positive for \u03b1-INA and Olig2 and at least partly positive for synaptophysin and MAP2, but negative for Neu-N, nestin and CD34. GFAP and vimentin were expressed in reactive astrocytes but not in tumor cells.' Choi, Euno et al. 'Clinicopathological and molecular analysis of multinodular and vacuolating neuronal tumors of the cerebrum.' Human pathology vol. 86 (2019): 203-212. doi:10.1016/j.humpath.2018.11.028",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
18
]
},
"criterion 20": {
"description": "Identifies NeuN as part of the expected immunoprofile.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Vacuolated tumor cells were robustly positive for \u03b1-INA and Olig2 and at least partly positive for synaptophysin and MAP2, but negative for Neu-N, nestin and CD34. GFAP and vimentin were expressed in reactive astrocytes but not in tumor cells.' Choi, Euno et al. 'Clinicopathological and molecular analysis of multinodular and vacuolating neuronal tumors of the cerebrum.' Human pathology vol. 86 (2019): 203-212. doi:10.1016/j.humpath.2018.11.028",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
9
]
},
"criterion 21": {
"description": "States that NeuN is negative in multinodular and vacuolating glioneuronal tumor (MVNT).",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Vacuolated tumor cells were robustly positive for \u03b1-INA and Olig2 and at least partly positive for synaptophysin and MAP2, but negative for Neu-N, nestin and CD34. GFAP and vimentin were expressed in reactive astrocytes but not in tumor cells.' Choi, Euno et al. 'Clinicopathological and molecular analysis of multinodular and vacuolating neuronal tumors of the cerebrum.' Human pathology vol. 86 (2019): 203-212. doi:10.1016/j.humpath.2018.11.028",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
20
]
},
"criterion 22": {
"description": "Identifies HuC/HuD as part of the expected immunoprofile.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Vacuolated tumor cells were robustly positive for \u03b1-INA and Olig2 and at least partly positive for synaptophysin and MAP2, but negative for Neu-N, nestin and CD34. GFAP and vimentin were expressed in reactive astrocytes but not in tumor cells.' Choi, Euno et al. 'Clinicopathological and molecular analysis of multinodular and vacuolating neuronal tumors of the cerebrum.' Human pathology vol. 86 (2019): 203-212. doi:10.1016/j.humpath.2018.11.028",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
9
]
},
"criterion 23": {
"description": "States that HuC/HuD is positive in multinodular and vacuolating glioneuronal tumor (MVNT).",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Vacuolated tumor cells were robustly positive for \u03b1-INA and Olig2 and at least partly positive for synaptophysin and MAP2, but negative for Neu-N, nestin and CD34. GFAP and vimentin were expressed in reactive astrocytes but not in tumor cells.' Choi, Euno et al. 'Clinicopathological and molecular analysis of multinodular and vacuolating neuronal tumors of the cerebrum.' Human pathology vol. 86 (2019): 203-212. doi:10.1016/j.humpath.2018.11.028",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
22
]
},
"criterion 24": {
"description": "Identifies internexin as part of the expected immunoprofile.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Vacuolated tumor cells were robustly positive for \u03b1-INA and Olig2 and at least partly positive for synaptophysin and MAP2, but negative for Neu-N, nestin and CD34. GFAP and vimentin were expressed in reactive astrocytes but not in tumor cells.' Choi, Euno et al. 'Clinicopathological and molecular analysis of multinodular and vacuolating neuronal tumors of the cerebrum.' Human pathology vol. 86 (2019): 203-212. doi:10.1016/j.humpath.2018.11.028",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
9
]
},
"criterion 25": {
"description": "States that internexin is positive in multinodular and vacuolating glioneuronal tumor (MVNT).",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Vacuolated tumor cells were robustly positive for \u03b1-INA and Olig2 and at least partly positive for synaptophysin and MAP2, but negative for Neu-N, nestin and CD34. GFAP and vimentin were expressed in reactive astrocytes but not in tumor cells.' Choi, Euno et al. 'Clinicopathological and molecular analysis of multinodular and vacuolating neuronal tumors of the cerebrum.' Human pathology vol. 86 (2019): 203-212. doi:10.1016/j.humpath.2018.11.028",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
24
]
}
}
|
documents/1477/Patient_B.pdf
|
1,481
|
Medicine
|
A CSF sample is sent to you from a 59-year-old man with a 4-month history of metastatic lung adenocarcinoma. The patient presented with a 3-day history of headache. On examination there was papilledema. There was no leptomeningeal enhancement on MRI; however, subacute right thalamic stroke was evident. The clinical impression was infection or malignant meningitis. The patient has been started on IV broad spectrum antibiotics. The attached document 'Patient_C.pdf' describes the cytological findings. The attached document 'Patient_C_biopsy.pdf describes the histology findings from the initial biopsy.
Accounting for the clinical context, please state the two most likely neuropathological differential diagnoses. Briefly outline your clinical reasoning. What immunocytochemical stains are required to narrow this differential diagnosis?
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "States that the patient has metastatic lung adenocarcinoma.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "The prompt states 'A CSF sample is sent to you from a 59-year-old man with a 4-month history of metastatic lung adenocarcinoma.'",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "States that the primary tumour harbored an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation.",
"sources": "Attached document - 'Patient_C_biopsy.pdf'",
"justification": "The attached document 'Patient_C_biopsy.pdf' states 'A mutation in EGFR has been detected.'",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "States that the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) shows atypical cells.",
"sources": "Attached document - 'Patient_C.pdf'",
"justification": "The attached document 'Patient_C.pdf' states 'Microscopic examination shows an infiltrate of medium sized atypical cells.'",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "States that the CSF shows necrosis.",
"sources": "Attached document - 'Patient_C.pdf'",
"justification": "The attached document 'Patient_C.pdf' states 'The background appears necrotic.'",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "States 'metastatic lung adenocarcinoma' is one of the most likely neuropathological differential diagnoses.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'The confirmative diagnosis of leptomeningeal metastasis depends on detecting malignant cells on the cytologic examination of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). The presence of leptomeningeal metastasis is a very important factor to determine the aggressiveness of treatment. We analyzed 273 cases that were diagnosed as malignancies on the CSF cytology. The most common metastatic carcinoma was lung cancer (76 cases, 27.8%). ' Hwang I, et al. Analysis of Leptomeningeal Metastasis in Cerebrospinal Fluid Cytology. Journal of Pathology and Translational Medicine 2009;43(1):63-67 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4132/KoreanJPathol.2009.43.1.6.3",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1,
2,
3,
4
]
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "States 'metastatic lung adenocarcinoma with small cell transformation' is one of the most likely neuropathological differential diagnoses.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Histologic transformation of EGFR mutant lung adenocarcinoma (LADC) into small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) has been identified as one of the major mechanisms of resistance to epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs).1-3 Patients typically present with an aggressive clinical course after the transformation, which leads to a rapid deterioration of the patients' condition.4 ' Lee, June-Koo, et al. 'Clonal History and Genetic Predictors of Transformation Into Small-Cell Carcinomas From Lung Adenocarcinomas.' Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 35, no. 26, 2017, pp. 3065\u201374, https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2016.71.9096.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
9,
5,
2,
1,
3,
4
]
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "States that metastasis to the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) is a known consequence of metastatic lung adenocarcinoma.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Leptomeningeal metastasis (LM) occurs in 4\u201315% of patients with solid tumors.' 'We retrospectively analyzed a series of 85 consecutive patients with cytologically proven LM who were treated between 1997 and 2005. The primary diseases were as follows; lung cancer (n = 36), breast cancer (n = 33), gastric cancer (n = 8), and others (n = 8).' Waki, Fusako et al. 'Prognostic factors and clinical outcomes in patients with leptomeningeal metastasis from solid tumors.' Journal of neuro-oncology vol. 93,2 (2009): 205-12. doi:10.1007/s11060-008-9758-3",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
5
]
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "Mentions that the patient is likely to have received EGFR tyrosine kinase (TK) inhibitor treatment.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Osimertinib is recommended, within its marketing authorisation, as an option for untreated locally advanced or metastatic epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in adults.' https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta654/chapter/1-Recommendation",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
2
]
},
"criterion 9": {
"description": "Mentions that metastatic lung adenocarcinoma with small cell transformation is a complication of EGFR tyrosine kinase (TK) inhibitor treatment.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Histologic transformation of EGFR mutant lung adenocarcinoma (LADC) into small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) has been identified as one of the major mechanisms of resistance to epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs).1-3 Patients typically present with an aggressive clinical course after the transformation, which leads to a rapid deterioration of the patients' condition.4 ' Lee, June-Koo, et al. 'Clonal History and Genetic Predictors of Transformation Into Small-Cell Carcinomas From Lung Adenocarcinomas.' Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 35, no. 26, 2017, pp. 3065\u201374, https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2016.71.9096.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
8
]
},
"criterion 10": {
"description": "Mentions that metastatic lung adenocarcinoma with small cell transformation is a complication of EGFR tyrosine kinase (TK) inhibitor treatment in up to 15% of patients.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Histologic transformation from LUAD to small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is one well-characterized resistance mechanism that occurs in up to 15% of patients with EGFRm LUAD following progression on an EGFR TKI, and appears to be increasing in prevalence with the use of more selective EGFR TKIs, such as osimertinib (4\u20137). EGFRm LUADs that undergo SCLC transformation are aggressive cancers that portend poor prognosis and require a change in therapeutic regimen (8). Zarif T et al. Detecting Small Cell Transformation in Patients with Advanced EGFR Mutant Lung Adenocarcinoma through Epigenomic cfDNA Profiling. Clin Cancer Res 1 September 2024; 30 (17): 3798\u20133811. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-24-0466",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
9
]
},
"criterion 11": {
"description": "Mentions that metastatic lung adenocarcinoma with small cell transformation is clinically important because of management implications.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'After transformation, clinical behavior mimics classic (EGFR wild-type) SCLC on many levels, with frequent but transient responses to platinum etoposide. The median PFS was 4 months after first-line treatment and the median OS was 8.5 months. Compared with primary SCLC, the clinical prognosis of transformed SCLC is worse (66). We found that combination therapy (including chemotherapy combined with radiotherapy, chemotherapy combined with targeted therapy, and chemotherapy combined with chemotherapy and targeted therapy) had a longer median PFS than conventional chemotherapy (4 months vs. 7 months). However, there was no significant benefit in the combined treatment group in the transformed median OS.' Xu, Jinhe et al. 'Outcomes in Patients With Lung Adenocarcinoma With Transformation to Small Cell Lung Cancer After EGFR Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors Resistance: A Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis.' Frontiers in oncology vol. 11 766148. 28 Jan. 2022, doi:10.3389/fonc.2021.766148",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
9
]
},
"criterion 12": {
"description": "Lists TTF-1 immunocytochemistry in the suggested panel of stains.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Expressed in a high percentage of lung adenocarcinoma and small cell carcinoma, also in a variable percentage of extrapulmonary small cell carcinoma' https://www.pathologyoutlines.com/topic/stainsttf1.html",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
6,
5
]
},
"criterion 13": {
"description": "Mentions that TTF-1 confirms that the tumor originated in the lung.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Expressed in a high percentage of lung adenocarcinoma and small cell carcinoma, also in a variable percentage of extrapulmonary small cell carcinoma' https://www.pathologyoutlines.com/topic/stainsttf1.html",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
12
]
},
"criterion 14": {
"description": "States TTF-1 is positive in metastatic lung adenocarcinoma.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Expressed in a high percentage of lung adenocarcinoma and small cell carcinoma, also in a variable percentage of extrapulmonary small cell carcinoma' https://www.pathologyoutlines.com/topic/stainsttf1.html",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
12
]
},
"criterion 15": {
"description": "States TTF-1 is positive in metastatic lung adenocarcinoma with small cell transformation.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Expressed in a high percentage of lung adenocarcinoma and small cell carcinoma, also in a variable percentage of extrapulmonary small cell carcinoma' https://www.pathologyoutlines.com/topic/stainsttf1.html",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
12
]
},
"criterion 16": {
"description": "Lists Napsin A immunocytochemistry in the suggested panel of stains.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Positive staining - disease: Lung adenocarcinoma (74 - 92%) (Pathology 2019;51:240, Pathol Oncol Res 2021;27:613099, Cancer Cytopathol 2016;124:472, Turk Patoloji Derg 2021;37:7, Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2020;21:3345, Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol 2016;24:648)' 'Negative staining - Poorly differentiated neuroendocrine (small cell) carcinoma (0 - 20%) (Pathol Oncol Res 2021;27:613099, Am J Clin Pathol 2014;142:320, Biotech Histochem 2018;93:364)' https://www.pathologyoutlines.com/topic/stainsnapsina.html",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
6,
5
]
},
"criterion 17": {
"description": "States Napsin A is positive in metastatic lung adenocarcinoma.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Positive staining - disease: Lung adenocarcinoma (74 - 92%) (Pathology 2019;51:240, Pathol Oncol Res 2021;27:613099, Cancer Cytopathol 2016;124:472, Turk Patoloji Derg 2021;37:7, Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2020;21:3345, Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol 2016;24:648)' 'Negative staining - Poorly differentiated neuroendocrine (small cell) carcinoma (0 - 20%) (Pathol Oncol Res 2021;27:613099, Am J Clin Pathol 2014;142:320, Biotech Histochem 2018;93:364)' https://www.pathologyoutlines.com/topic/stainsnapsina.html",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
16
]
},
"criterion 18": {
"description": "States Napsin A is negative in metastatic lung adenocarcinoma with small cell transformation.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Positive staining - disease: Lung adenocarcinoma (74 - 92%) (Pathology 2019;51:240, Pathol Oncol Res 2021;27:613099, Cancer Cytopathol 2016;124:472, Turk Patoloji Derg 2021;37:7, Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2020;21:3345, Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol 2016;24:648)' 'Negative staining - Poorly differentiated neuroendocrine (small cell) carcinoma (0 - 20%) (Pathol Oncol Res 2021;27:613099, Am J Clin Pathol 2014;142:320, Biotech Histochem 2018;93:364)' https://www.pathologyoutlines.com/topic/stainsnapsina.html",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
16
]
},
"criterion 19": {
"description": "Lists synaptophysin immunocytochemistry in the suggested panel of stains.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Positive staining - disease: Small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (Am J Surg Pathol 2020;44:757)' 'Negative staining: Adenocarcinoma' https://www.pathologyoutlines.com/topic/stainssynaptophysin.html",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
6,
5
]
},
"criterion 20": {
"description": "States synaptophysin is positive in metastatic lung adenocarcinoma with small cell transformation.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Positive staining - disease: Small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (Am J Surg Pathol 2020;44:757)' 'Negative staining: Adenocarcinoma' https://www.pathologyoutlines.com/topic/stainssynaptophysin.html",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
19
]
},
"criterion 21": {
"description": "States synaptophysin is negative in metastatic lung adenocarcinoma.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Positive staining - disease: Small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (Am J Surg Pathol 2020;44:757)' 'Negative staining: Adenocarcinoma' https://www.pathologyoutlines.com/topic/stainssynaptophysin.html",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
19
]
}
}
|
documents/1481/Patient_C.pdf
documents/1481/Patient_C_biopsy.pdf
|
1,494
|
Medicine
|
A 45-year-old male with psoriasis was getting a knee injection at his orthopedic office. He was noted to have scaly plaques on his knees and was referred back to his primary doctor to further evaluate. Please refer to additional information in the attached Document A.pdf to answer the following questions.
What two tests should the doctor order to confirm the most likely diagnosis? Briefly explain your reasoning. Based on the patient’s clinical presentation and most probable diagnosis, how should the physician counsel him on next steps?
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "States that the patient's rash is painless",
"sources": "Document A.pdf",
"justification": "'On skin examination in the primary care office, the patient has scaly silvery plaques on both knees as well as scaly, red papules on his palms and on the bottom of his feet. His knees are itchy and sore, but he otherwise has no complaints.'",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "Notes that the location of the patient's rash is characteristic of syphilis",
"sources": "Document A. pdf",
"justification": "'Involvement of the palms and soles is an important and singular distinguishing feature, although skin lesions in secondary syphilis are highly variable and widespread.' https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK534780/",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1
]
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "States syphilis is the most probable diagnosis.",
"sources": "Document A. pdf",
"justification": "'Involvement of the palms and soles is an important and singular distinguishing feature, although skin lesions in secondary syphilis are highly variable and widespread.' 'Since syphilis can present with a wide range of signs and symptoms, the threshold for serologic testing should be low. We test the following groups of patients regardless of their apparent risk behaviors: \u25cfAny sexually active patient with an undiagnosed genital ulcer or a rash that involves the palms and soles.' https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK534780/ https://www.uptodate.com/contents/syphilis-screening-and-diagnostic-testing",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
2
]
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "States that a rash is the most characteristic finding of secondary syphilis",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Rash is the most characteristic finding of secondary syphilis.' https://www.uptodate.com/contents/syphilis-epidemiology-pathophysiology-and-clinical-manifestations-in-patients-without-hiv",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "States the initial diagnostic test for secondary syphilis is a nontreponemal test.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Traditional serologic testing algorithms for syphilis have involved initial screening with a nontreponemal test (eg, RPR). A reactive nontreponemal test is then confirmed with a treponemal test, such as the fluorescent treponemal antibody absorption (FTA-ABS) [6].' https://www.uptodate.com/contents/syphilis-screening-and-diagnostic-testing",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "States that rapid plasma reagin (RPR) is a type of nontreponemal test.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Nontreponemal tests include: \u25cfRapid plasma reagin (RPR) \u25cfVenereal Disease Research Laboratory (VDRL) \u25cfToluidine Red Unheated Serum Test (TRUST)' https://www.uptodate.com/contents/syphilis-screening-and-diagnostic-testing",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
5
]
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "States that Venereal Disease Research Laboratory (VDRL) is a type of nontreponemal test.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Nontreponemal tests include: \u25cfRapid plasma reagin (RPR) \u25cfVenereal Disease Research Laboratory (VDRL) \u25cfToluidine Red Unheated Serum Test (TRUST)' https://www.uptodate.com/contents/syphilis-screening-and-diagnostic-testing",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
5
]
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "States that Toluidine Red Unheated Serum Test (TRUST) is a type of nontreponemal test.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Nontreponemal tests include: \u25cfRapid plasma reagin (RPR) \u25cfVenereal Disease Research Laboratory (VDRL) \u25cfToluidine Red Unheated Serum Test (TRUST)' https://www.uptodate.com/contents/syphilis-screening-and-diagnostic-testing",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
5
]
},
"criterion 9": {
"description": "States the test to confirm the diagnosis of syphilis is a treponemal test.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Traditional serologic testing algorithms for syphilis have involved initial screening with a nontreponemal test (eg, RPR). A reactive nontreponemal test is then confirmed with a treponemal test, such as the fluorescent treponemal antibody absorption (FTA-ABS) [6].' https://www.uptodate.com/contents/syphilis-screening-and-diagnostic-testing",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 10": {
"description": "States that Fluorescent treponemal antibody absorption (FTA-ABS) is a type of treponemal test.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Specific treponemal tests include: \u25cfFluorescent treponemal antibody absorption (FTA-ABS) \u25cfMicrohemagglutination test for antibodies to T. pallidum (MHA-TP) \u25cfT. pallidum particle agglutination assay (TPPA) \u25cfT. pallidum enzyme immunoassay (TP-EIA) \u25cfChemiluminescence immunoassay (CIA)' https://www.uptodate.com/contents/syphilis-screening-and-diagnostic-testing",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
9
]
},
"criterion 11": {
"description": "States that Microhemagglutination test for antibodies to T. pallidum (MHA-TP) is a type of treponemal test.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Specific treponemal tests include: \u25cfFluorescent treponemal antibody absorption (FTA-ABS) \u25cfMicrohemagglutination test for antibodies to T. pallidum (MHA-TP) \u25cfT. pallidum particle agglutination assay (TPPA) \u25cfT. pallidum enzyme immunoassay (TP-EIA) \u25cfChemiluminescence immunoassay (CIA)' https://www.uptodate.com/contents/syphilis-screening-and-diagnostic-testing",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
9
]
},
"criterion 12": {
"description": "States that T. pallidum particle agglutination assay (TPPA) is a type of treponemal test.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Specific treponemal tests include: \u25cfFluorescent treponemal antibody absorption (FTA-ABS) \u25cfMicrohemagglutination test for antibodies to T. pallidum (MHA-TP) \u25cfT. pallidum particle agglutination assay (TPPA) \u25cfT. pallidum enzyme immunoassay (TP-EIA) \u25cfChemiluminescence immunoassay (CIA)' https://www.uptodate.com/contents/syphilis-screening-and-diagnostic-testing",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
9
]
},
"criterion 13": {
"description": "States that T. pallidum enzyme immunoassay (TP-EIA) is a type of treponemal test.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Specific treponemal tests include: \u25cfFluorescent treponemal antibody absorption (FTA-ABS) \u25cfMicrohemagglutination test for antibodies to T. pallidum (MHA-TP) \u25cfT. pallidum particle agglutination assay (TPPA) \u25cfT. pallidum enzyme immunoassay (TP-EIA) \u25cfChemiluminescence immunoassay (CIA)' https://www.uptodate.com/contents/syphilis-screening-and-diagnostic-testing",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
9
]
},
"criterion 14": {
"description": "States that Chemiluminescence immunoassay (CIA) is a type of treponemal test.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Specific treponemal tests include: \u25cfFluorescent treponemal antibody absorption (FTA-ABS) \u25cfMicrohemagglutination test for antibodies to T. pallidum (MHA-TP) \u25cfT. pallidum particle agglutination assay (TPPA) \u25cfT. pallidum enzyme immunoassay (TP-EIA) \u25cfChemiluminescence immunoassay (CIA)' https://www.uptodate.com/contents/syphilis-screening-and-diagnostic-testing",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
9
]
},
"criterion 15": {
"description": "States that syphilis is a sexually transmitted infection.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Syphilis is a sexually transmitted infection (STI) that can cause serious health problems without treatment.' https://www.cdc.gov/syphilis/about/index.html",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 16": {
"description": "Recommends treatment of secondary syphilis with antibiotics.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'The goals of treatment for early syphilis are to prevent long-term adverse outcomes of infection and reduce transmission to others. A diagnosis of early syphilis implies that T. pallidum infection occurred within the previous year. Early syphilis refers to primary, secondary, and early latent syphilis.' https://www.uptodate.com/contents/syphilis-treatment-and-monitoring",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 17": {
"description": "Recommends the patient be screened for other sexually transmitted infections.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'If you have been diagnosed with syphilis you should get tested for all STIs including: HIV chlamydia gonorrhea' https://www.nhsinform.scot/illnesses-and-conditions/sexual-and-reproductive/syphilis/",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
15
]
},
"criterion 18": {
"description": "Recommends safe sex practices to prevent transmission of sexually transmitted infections.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Condom use is one of the most effective means of preventing STIs [34]. Both the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO) assert the protective value of condoms in preventing STIs, and the WHO has incorporated condoms as an essential component in public health strategies to prevent STIs.' https://www.uptodate.com/contents/prevention-of-sexually-transmitted-infections",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
15
]
},
"criterion 19": {
"description": "Recommends informing all sexual partners within the past 6 months of the diagnosis of syphilis.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'The following sex partners of persons with syphilis are considered at risk for infection and should be confidentially notified of the exposure and need for evaluation: partners who have had sexual contact within 3 months plus the duration of symptoms for persons who receive a diagnosis of primary syphilis, within 6 months plus duration of symptoms for those with secondary syphilis, and within 1 year for persons with early latent syphilis.' https://www.cdc.gov/std/treatment-guidelines/syphilis.htm",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
15
]
}
}
|
documents/1494/Document A.pdf
|
1,495
|
Medicine
|
A 5-year-old previously healthy male is admitted to the hospital.
Labs showed elevated DHEAS.
Imaging confirmed the diagnosis.
Please refer to the attachment (Attachment 1495.pdf) for further information to answer the question below:
What are the stages of this disease according to the Children's Oncology Group (COG)?
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "Mentions the patient is 5 years old.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "From the prompt: 'A 5-year-old previously healthy male is admitted to the hospital.'",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "Mentions the physical exam finding of pubic hair.",
"sources": "Attachement 1495.pdf",
"justification": "From the Attachment 1495.pdf: 'GU: circumcised. Testicles down bilaterally, slightly full, symmetric. 1+ pubic hair.'",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "Mentions the physical exam finding of full testicles.",
"sources": "Attachement 1495.pdf",
"justification": "From the Attachment 1495.pdf: 'GU: circumcised. Testicles down bilaterally, slightly full, symmetric. 1+ pubic hair.'",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "Concludes the patient has a physical exam consistent with precocious puberty.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Pubic hair and enlarged testicles in a 5 year old male are consistent with precocious puberty. 'Precocious puberty \u2013 Precocious puberty is usually defined as breast development prior to eight years of age in assigned females and testicular enlargement before the age of nine years in assigned males. Secondary sex characteristics (Tanner stages) \u2014 The development of secondary sex characteristics consists of a series of events that usually proceed in a predictable order, with some variation in timing of onset, sequence, and tempo (figure 2A-B). Sexual maturity ratings are the staging system used most frequently. These are also known as 'Tanner stages' because they were popularized by Marshall and Tanner [49,50]. Tanner stages describe the development of secondary sex characteristics, consisting of breast changes in children with a predominantly estradiol-driven puberty, genital changes in children with a predominantly testosterone-driven puberty, and pubic hair changes in both. Sexual maturity ratings for pubic hair, breasts, and male genitalia each consist of five stages, with stage 1 representing prepuberty and stage 5 representing full adult development (table 1). The various stages are illustrated in the figures (figure 3 and figure 4 and figure 5).' UpToDate - Normal Puberty https://www.uptodate.com/contents/normal-puberty?sectionName=Secondary%20sex%20characteristics%20%28Tanner%20stages%29&search=precocious%20puberty&topicRef=5812&anchor=H4&source=see_link#H1595675304",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1,
2,
3,
19
]
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "Mentions the elevated DHEAS on labs.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "From the prompt: 'Labs showed elevated DHEAS.'",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "Concludes the most likely underlying diagnosis is an adrenocortical tumor.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Precocious puberty in a 5 year old male with elevated DHEAS on lab work is most likely caused by an adrenocortical tumor. 'Children usually present with virilization (84 percent), while isolated glucocorticoid excess (Cushing's syndrome) is much less common (6 percent) [51,87].' UpToDate, Clinical Presentation and Evaluation of Adrenocortical Tumors. https://www.uptodate.com/contents/clinical-presentation-and-evaluation-of-adrenocortical-tumors?search=premature%20adrenarche&topicRef=5812&source=see_link#H16 'Adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC) is a rare malignant tumor which is more common in women and hirsutism may be an early sign of the disease. High DHEAS level is considered as the hallmark of the disease.' Turkish Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism https://www.endocrinolrespract.org/Content/files/sayilar/54/6-1-0_25-29.pdf",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
4,
5
]
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "Mentions that the Children's Oncology Group staging for adrenocortical tumors is 4 stages.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Although the AJCC TNM staging system is widely used in ACCs, a clinical staging scheme has been proposed by the Children's Oncology Group (COG), according to tumor weight, completeness of resection and presence of metastases [156\u2013158] (Table 7). When present, the brain, liver, lungs, and bone are the organs most frequently affected by metastases [159]. In addition to the role of Ki67 immunohistochemistry, meta-analyses have also confirmed the prognostic significance of the following parameters: age, stage, tumor weight\u2009>\u2009200 g, extra-adrenal extension, incomplete resection, metastatic disease, and cortisol secretion [152, 155, 157]. Table 7: The Children's Oncology Group (COG) staging system for pediatric adrenal cortical tumors: Stage 1: Tumor completely excised with negative margins, tumor weight < 200 grams, no metastases Stage 2: Tumor completely excised with negative margins, tumor weight > 200 grams, no metastases Stage 3: Microscopic or gross incomplete resection or inoperable tumor. Stage 4: Hematogenous metastases at clinical presentation.' Overview of the 2022 WHO Classification of Adrenal Cortical Tumors. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8920443/#Sec8",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
20
]
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "Mentions that stage 1 for COG staging of adrenocortical tumors includes complete resection.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'The Children's Oncology Group (COG) staging system for pediatric adrenal cortical tumors: Stage 1: Tumor completely excised with negative margins, tumor weight < 200 grams, no metastases Stage 2: Tumor completely excised with negative margins, tumor weight > 200 grams, no metastases Stage 3: Microscopic or gross incomplete resection or inoperable tumor. Stage 4: Hematogenous metastases at clinical presentation.' Overview of the 2022 WHO Classification of Adrenal Cortical Tumors. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8920443/#Sec8",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
7
]
},
"criterion 9": {
"description": "Mentions that stage 1 for COG staging of adrenocortical tumors includes negative margins.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "The Children's Oncology Group (COG) staging system for pediatric adrenal cortical tumors: Stage 1: Tumor completely excised with negative margins, tumor weight < 200 grams, no metastases Stage 2: Tumor completely excised with negative margins, tumor weight > 200 grams, no metastases Stage 3: Microscopic or gross incomplete resection or inoperable tumor. Stage 4: Hematogenous metastases at clinical presentation. Overview of the 2022 WHO Classification of Adrenal Cortical Tumors. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8920443/#Sec8",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
7
]
},
"criterion 10": {
"description": "Mentions that stage 1 for COG staging of adrenocortical tumors includes tumor weight < 200 grams.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "The Children's Oncology Group (COG) staging system for pediatric adrenal cortical tumors: Stage 1: Tumor completely excised with negative margins, tumor weight < 200 grams, no metastases Stage 2: Tumor completely excised with negative margins, tumor weight > 200 grams, no metastases Stage 3: Microscopic or gross incomplete resection or inoperable tumor. Stage 4: Hematogenous metastases at clinical presentation. Overview of the 2022 WHO Classification of Adrenal Cortical Tumors. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8920443/#Sec8",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
7
]
},
"criterion 11": {
"description": "Mentions that stage 1 for COG staging of adrenocortical tumors includes no metastasis.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "The Children's Oncology Group (COG) staging system for pediatric adrenal cortical tumors: Stage 1: Tumor completely excised with negative margins, tumor weight < 200 grams, no metastases Stage 2: Tumor completely excised with negative margins, tumor weight > 200 grams, no metastases Stage 3: Microscopic or gross incomplete resection or inoperable tumor. Stage 4: Hematogenous metastases at clinical presentation. Overview of the 2022 WHO Classification of Adrenal Cortical Tumors. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8920443/#Sec8",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
7
]
},
"criterion 12": {
"description": "Mentions that stage 2 for COG staging of adrenocortical tumors includes complete resection.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "The Children's Oncology Group (COG) staging system for pediatric adrenal cortical tumors: Stage 1: Tumor completely excised with negative margins, tumor weight < 200 grams, no metastases Stage 2: Tumor completely excised with negative margins, tumor weight > 200 grams, no metastases Stage 3: Microscopic or gross incomplete resection or inoperable tumor. Stage 4: Hematogenous metastases at clinical presentation. Overview of the 2022 WHO Classification of Adrenal Cortical Tumors. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8920443/#Sec8",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
7
]
},
"criterion 13": {
"description": "Mentions that stage 2 for COG staging of adrenocortical tumors includes negative margins.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "The Children's Oncology Group (COG) staging system for pediatric adrenal cortical tumors: Stage 1: Tumor completely excised with negative margins, tumor weight < 200 grams, no metastases Stage 2: Tumor completely excised with negative margins, tumor weight > 200 grams, no metastases Stage 3: Microscopic or gross incomplete resection or inoperable tumor. Stage 4: Hematogenous metastases at clinical presentation. Overview of the 2022 WHO Classification of Adrenal Cortical Tumors. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8920443/#Sec8",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
7
]
},
"criterion 14": {
"description": "Mentions that stage 2 for COG staging of adrenocortical tumors includes tumor weight > 200 grams.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "The Children's Oncology Group (COG) staging system for pediatric adrenal cortical tumors: Stage 1: Tumor completely excised with negative margins, tumor weight < 200 grams, no metastases Stage 2: Tumor completely excised with negative margins, tumor weight > 200 grams, no metastases Stage 3: Microscopic or gross incomplete resection or inoperable tumor. Stage 4: Hematogenous metastases at clinical presentation. Overview of the 2022 WHO Classification of Adrenal Cortical Tumors. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8920443/#Sec8",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
7
]
},
"criterion 15": {
"description": "Mentions that stage 2 for COG staging of adrenocortical tumors includes no metastasis.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "The Children's Oncology Group (COG) staging system for pediatric adrenal cortical tumors: Stage 1: Tumor completely excised with negative margins, tumor weight < 200 grams, no metastases Stage 2: Tumor completely excised with negative margins, tumor weight > 200 grams, no metastases Stage 3: Microscopic or gross incomplete resection or inoperable tumor. Stage 4: Hematogenous metastases at clinical presentation. Overview of the 2022 WHO Classification of Adrenal Cortical Tumors. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8920443/#Sec8",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
7
]
},
"criterion 16": {
"description": "Mentions that stage 3 for COG staging of adrenocortical tumors includes residual disease post-operatively.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "The Children's Oncology Group (COG) staging system for pediatric adrenal cortical tumors: Stage 1: Tumor completely excised with negative margins, tumor weight < 200 grams, no metastases Stage 2: Tumor completely excised with negative margins, tumor weight > 200 grams, no metastases Stage 3: Microscopic or gross incomplete resection or inoperable tumor. Stage 4: Hematogenous metastases at clinical presentation. Overview of the 2022 WHO Classification of Adrenal Cortical Tumors. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8920443/#Sec8",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
7
]
},
"criterion 17": {
"description": "Mentions that stage 3 for COG staging of adrenocortical tumors includes inoperable tumors.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "The Children's Oncology Group (COG) staging system for pediatric adrenal cortical tumors: Stage 1: Tumor completely excised with negative margins, tumor weight < 200 grams, no metastases Stage 2: Tumor completely excised with negative margins, tumor weight > 200 grams, no metastases Stage 3: Microscopic or gross incomplete resection or inoperable tumor. Stage 4: Hematogenous metastases at clinical presentation. Overview of the 2022 WHO Classification of Adrenal Cortical Tumors. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8920443/#Sec8",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
7
]
},
"criterion 18": {
"description": "Mentions that stage 4 for COG staging of adrenocortical tumors includes metastasis at presentation.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "The Children's Oncology Group (COG) staging system for pediatric adrenal cortical tumors: Stage 1: Tumor completely excised with negative margins, tumor weight < 200 grams, no metastases Stage 2: Tumor completely excised with negative margins, tumor weight > 200 grams, no metastases Stage 3: Microscopic or gross incomplete resection or inoperable tumor. Stage 4: Hematogenous metastases at clinical presentation. Overview of the 2022 WHO Classification of Adrenal Cortical Tumors. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8920443/#Sec8",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
7
]
},
"criterion 19": {
"description": "Mentions the patient's gender is male.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "From the prompt: 'A 5-year-old previously healthy male is admitted to the hospital.'",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 20": {
"description": "Utilizes the Children's Oncology Group for adrenocortical tumor staging.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "The Children's Oncology Group (COG) staging system for pediatric adrenal cortical tumors. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8920443/#Sec8",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
}
}
|
documents/1495/Attachment 1495 (1).pdf
|
1,501
|
Medicine
|
A 58‑year‑old woman with invasive ductal carcinoma of the right breast undergoes planned breast‑conserving surgery (lumpectomy). Pre-operative imaging demonstrates a 1.8 cm lesion without axillary node involvement. She is highly motivated to preserve breast tissue and avoid a second surgery. Please refer to the attached file for the physical exam and lab results associated with this case.
After standard lumpectomy, intraoperative frozen sectioning cannot reliably confirm margin status, and the surgical team desires an approach that ensures complete tumor removal in a single procedure without relying on delayed pathology results.
What is the best adjunctive intraoperative imaging therapy to optimize surgical completeness and reduce the likelihood of re‑excision? What is the dosing and timing required? Explain your reasoning.
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "States that the patient has invasive ductal carcinoma of the right breast.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "This is directly stated in the prompt.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "States that the patient's breast cancer is ER-positive, luminal A receptor subtype.",
"sources": "1501 Patient Info.pdf",
"justification": "This is extracted from the biopsy results in the source document.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "States that the best adjunctive intraoperative imaging therapy for this patient is pegulicianine (Lumisight).",
"sources": "",
"justification": "This is the exact indication for this medication. 'LUMISIGHT is an optical imaging agent indicated for fluorescence imaging in adults with breast cancer as an adjunct for the intraoperative detection of cancerous tissue within the resection cavity following removal of the primary specimen during lumpectomy surgery.'https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2024/214511s000lbl.pdf",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1,
2,
16
]
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "States that the correct dose of pegulicianine is 1 mg/kg.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "This is the dose recommended by the manufacturer. 'Recommended dose of LUMISIGHT is 1 mg/kg by intravenous injection over 3 minutes, administered 2 hours to 6 hours prior to imaging' https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2024/214511s000lbl.pdf.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
3
]
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "States that the route of administration of pegulicianine is intravenous (IV).",
"sources": "",
"justification": "This is the route of administration required by the manufacturer. 'Recommended dose of LUMISIGHT is 1 mg/kg by intravenous injection over 3 minutes, administered 2 hours to 6 hours prior to imaging' https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2024/214511s000lbl.pdf.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
3
]
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "States that pegulicianine is administered over three minutes.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "This is the duration recommended by the manufacturer. 'Recommended dose of LUMISIGHT is 1 mg/kg by intravenous injection over 3 minutes, administered 2 hours to 6 hours prior to imaging' https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2024/214511s000lbl.pdf.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
3
]
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "States that pegulicianine is administered 2 to 6 hours before surgery.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "This is the timing recommended by the manufacturer. 'Recommended dose of LUMISIGHT is 1 mg/kg by intravenous injection over 3 minutes, administered 2 hours to 6 hours prior to imaging' https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2024/214511s000lbl.pdf.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
3
]
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "States that pegulicianine is FDA-approved to identify tumor cells during breast cancer surgery.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "This is what pegulicianine does, according to the manufacturer. 'LUMISIGHT is an optical imaging agent indicated for fluorescence imaging in adults with breast cancer as an adjunct for the intraoperative detection of cancerous tissue within the resection cavity following removal of the primary specimen during lumpectomy surgery.' https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2024/214511s000lbl.pdf",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
3
]
},
"criterion 9": {
"description": "States that pegulicianine fluoresces in the presence of cathepsins.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "This is the mechanism indicated by the manufacturer. 'Pegulicianine is a prodrug that is optically inactive when intact and produces a fluorescent signal after its peptide chain is cleaved by cathepsins.' https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2024/214511s000lbl.pdf",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
3
]
},
"criterion 10": {
"description": "States that cathepsins are present in ER-positive luminal breast cancer tumors.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "This is supported by clinical research. 'In this study, we have identified that cysteine protease cathepsin V can suppress GATA3 expression in ER-positive breast cancers.' https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7726886/",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
3
]
},
"criterion 11": {
"description": "States that pafolacianine (Cytalux) is not the right imaging tool.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Cytalux binds to folate receptor alpha, but this is unlikely to be present in the patient's breast cancer. 'Pafolacianine binds to alpha and beta folate receptors (FR) on cells.' https://cytalux.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/cytalux-uspi-july-2025.pdf 'FRA expression was shown to associate with ER/PR negative tumors.' https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3725886/",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
2
]
},
"criterion 12": {
"description": "States that pafolacianine (Cytalux) binds to folate receptor alpha.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "This is the mechanism indicated by the manufacturer. 'Pafolacianine binds to alpha and beta folate receptors (FR) on cells.' https://cytalux.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/cytalux-uspi-july-2025.pdf",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
11
]
},
"criterion 13": {
"description": "States that ER-positive luminal breast cancer tumors do not have folate receptor alpha expression.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "This has been supported by clinical studies. 'FRA expression was shown to associate with ER/PR negative tumors.' https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3725886/",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
3,
12
]
},
"criterion 14": {
"description": "States that pegulicianine is intended to be used intraoperatively.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "The goal is for the tumor cells to light up in the operating room to lead to more complete excision. 'LUMISIGHT is an optical imaging agent indicated for fluorescence imaging in adults with breast cancer as an adjunct for the intraoperative detection of cancerous tissue within the resection cavity following removal of the primary specimen during lumpectomy surgery.' https://cytalux.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/cytalux-uspi-july-2025.pdf",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
3
]
},
"criterion 15": {
"description": "States that pegulicianine allows surgeons to visualize microscopic remnants in the operating room.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "When tumor cells light up in the operating room, surgeons can see the remnants of the tumor, if any are present, that need to be removed. 'LUMISIGHT is an optical imaging agent indicated for fluorescence imaging in adults with breast cancer as an adjunct for the intraoperative detection of cancerous tissue within the resection cavity following removal of the primary specimen during lumpectomy surgery.' https://cytalux.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/cytalux-uspi-july-2025.pdf",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
3
]
},
"criterion 16": {
"description": "States that luminal\u202fA tumors often blend into healthy parenchyma.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "This is supported by clinical studies. 'Under a microscope, luminal A breast cancer cells look more like normal cells.' https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms/def/luminal-a-breast-cancer",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
}
}
|
documents/1501/1501 Patient Info.pdf
|
1,508
|
Medicine
|
A 30-year-old female is brought in by paramedics for a suicide attempt. What blood test should be checked that is a highly accurate predictor of death, having been shown to be seen almost exclusively in non-survivors compared to survivors? Provide a brief explanation. Use the attached patient chart.
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "States that the patient presents with an acetaminophen overdose.",
"sources": "1508 Chart.pdf",
"justification": "This is from the attachment.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "Recognizes that a serum phosphate level should be checked.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Elevated phosphate seen in nonsurvivors therefore should be checked for prognosis. 'In conclusion, hyperphosphatemia after acetaminophen overdose is seen exclusively in nonsurvivors,' https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12198658/",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1,
5,
3
]
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "States that hyperphosphatemia can occur in acetaminophen overdose.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Phosphate can be elevated and be a marker for non-survival. 'In conclusion, hyperphosphatemia after acetaminophen overdose is seen exclusively in nonsurvivors,' https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12198658/",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "Recognizes that in a study on acetaminophen overdose, hyperphosphatemia was seen almost exclusively in nonsurvivors.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "This is a finding from a study. 'In conclusion, hyperphosphatemia after acetaminophen overdose is seen exclusively in nonsurvivors,' https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12198658/",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
6,
7,
8
]
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "Concludes that in acetaminophen overdose, hyperphosphatemia is a highly accurate predictor of death.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'A prospective study looking at serum phosphate levels in patients with acetaminophen toxicity found that hyperphosphatemia was seen only in non-survivors, suggesting that it is a highly accurate predictor of death following acetaminophen overdose.' https://www.acepnow.com/article/8-pitfalls-in-recognition-and-management-of-acetaminophen-toxicity/?singlepage=1",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
4,
3
]
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "States that in acetaminophen overdose, a phosphate concentration threshold of 1.2 mmol/L was used for hyperphosphatemia.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Phosphate concentrations were significantly higher in nonsurvivors than in survivors at 48 to 72 hours after overdose (mean 2.65 +/- 1.18 mmol/L vs. 0.68 +/- 0.22 mmol/L, P <.001) as well as 72 to 96 hours after overdose (2.12 +/- 0.22 mmol/L vs. 0.59 +/- 0.23 mmol/L, P <.001). A threshold phosphate concentration of 1.2 mmol/L at 48 to 96 hours ' https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12198658/",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
9
]
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "Recognizes that in acetaminophen overdose, the phosphate threshold applies 48 to 96 hours after ingestion.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Phosphate concentrations were significantly higher in nonsurvivors than in survivors at 48 to 72 hours after overdose (mean 2.65 +/- 1.18 mmol/L vs. 0.68 +/- 0.22 mmol/L, P <.001) as well as 72 to 96 hours after overdose (2.12 +/- 0.22 mmol/L vs. 0.59 +/- 0.23 mmol/L, P <.001). A threshold phosphate concentration of 1.2 mmol/L at 48 to 96 hours ' https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12198658/",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1
]
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "States that in acetaminophen overdose, a phosphate concentration threshold of 1.2 mmol/L has a high accuracy for predicting survival.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'' A threshold phosphate concentration of 1.2 mmol/L at 48 to 96 hours after overdose' accuracy 98%' https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12198658/",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1
]
},
"criterion 9": {
"description": "References the study 'Serum phosphate is an early predictor of outcome in severe acetaminophen-induced hepatotoxicity.'",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Schmidt LE, Dalhoff K. Serum phosphate is an early predictor of outcome in severe acetaminophen-induced hepatotoxicity. Hepatology. 2002;36(3):659-665. doi:10.1053/jhep.2002.35069' https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12198658/",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
}
}
|
documents/1508/1508 Chart.pdf
|
1,513
|
Medicine
|
Note: For the following clinical scenario, refer to the latest and most appropriate clinical practice guidelines as of October 2025.
A 3-month-old male infant presents to the emergency room with his parents, who are concerned about an altered consciousness. The mother states that she was about to put him down for a nap when she noticed he suddenly went limp, turned blue, and stopped breathing. She called the father for help while trying to revive him. She attempted CPR by shaking him and providing rescue breaths through the mouth and nose. During the episode, she also suctioned some milky discharge from his nose and mouth. The father called 911 while she was performing these actions. After approximately 40-50 seconds, he regained consciousness and started crying. His color and muscle strength returned to normal. Paramedics arrived, evaluated him, and recommended that the parents bring him to the emergency room for further assessment.
Refer to the attachment (patient info.pdf) for further information.
He was diagnosed with a brief unexplained event (BRUE) in the emergency room and discharged home. Given the patient's full clinical presentation, to what extent is the diagnosis accurate? Briefly explain your clinical reasoning.
What is next best step in the management of this patient?
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "Utilizes the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) clinical practice guideline.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Brief Resolved Unexplained Events (Formerly Apparent Life-Threatening Events) and Evaluation of Lower-Risk Infants https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/137/5/e20160590/52195/Brief-Resolved-Unexplained-Events-Formerly?autologincheck=redirected",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "States that the patient's age can be associated with Brief Resolved Unexplained Events (BRUE).",
"sources": "",
"justification": "From the prompt: 'A 3-month-old male infant presents to the emergency room with his parents, who are concerned about an altered consciousness.' 'The term BRUE is defined as an event occurring in an infant younger than 1 year when the observer reports a sudden, brief, and now resolved episode of \u22651 of the following: (1) cyanosis or pallor; (2) absent, decreased, or irregular breathing; (3) marked change in tone (hyper- or hypotonia); and (4) altered level of responsiveness.' https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/137/5/e20160590/52195/Brief-Resolved-Unexplained-Events-Formerly?autologincheck=redirected",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "States that the patient's cyanosis can be associated BRUE.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "From the prompt: 'The mother states that she was about to put him down for a nap when she noticed he suddenly went limp, turned blue, and stopped breathing.' The patient turning blue indicates a cyanosis event. 'The term BRUE is defined as an event occurring in an infant younger than 1 year when the observer reports a sudden, brief, and now resolved episode of \u22651 of the following: (1) cyanosis or pallor; (2) absent, decreased, or irregular breathing; (3) marked change in tone (hyper- or hypotonia); and (4) altered level of responsiveness.' https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/137/5/e20160590/52195/Brief-Resolved-Unexplained-Events-Formerly?autologincheck=redirected",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "States that the patient's apnea can be associated with BRUE.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "From the prompt: 'The mother states that she was about to put him down for a nap when she noticed he suddenly went limp, turned blue, and stopped breathing.' The patient's cessation of breathing indicates an apnea event. 'The term BRUE is defined as an event occurring in an infant younger than 1 year when the observer reports a sudden, brief, and now resolved episode of \u22651 of the following: (1) cyanosis or pallor; (2) absent, decreased, or irregular breathing; (3) marked change in tone (hyper- or hypotonia); and (4) altered level of responsiveness.' https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/137/5/e20160590/52195/Brief-Resolved-Unexplained-Events-Formerly?autologincheck=redirected",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "States that the duration of the patient's apnea can be associated with BRUE.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "From the prompt: 'The mother states that she was about to put him down for a nap when she noticed he suddenly went limp, turned blue, and stopped breathing. She called the father for help while trying to revive him. She attempted CPR by shaking him and providing rescue breaths through mouth and nose. During the episode, she also suctioned some milky discharge from his nose and mouth. The father called 911 while she was performing these actions. After approximately 40-50 seconds, he regained consciousness and started crying.' The patient's cessation of breathing indicates an apnea event. The patient's apnea is brief, lasting 40-50 seconds. 'The term BRUE is defined as an event occurring in an infant younger than 1 year when the observer reports a sudden, brief, and now resolved episode of \u22651 of the following: (1) cyanosis or pallor; (2) absent, decreased, or irregular breathing; (3) marked change in tone (hyper- or hypotonia); and (4) altered level of responsiveness.' https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/137/5/e20160590/52195/Brief-Resolved-Unexplained-Events-Formerly?autologincheck=redirected",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "States that the patient's hypotonia can be associated with BRUE.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "From the prompt: 'The mother states that she was about to put him down for a nap when she noticed he suddenly went limp, turned blue, and stopped breathing.' The patient turning limp indicates a hypotonia event. 'The term BRUE is defined as an event occurring in an infant younger than 1 year when the observer reports a sudden, brief, and now resolved episode of \u22651 of the following: (1) cyanosis or pallor; (2) absent, decreased, or irregular breathing; (3) marked change in tone (hyper- or hypotonia); and (4) altered level of responsiveness.' https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/137/5/e20160590/52195/Brief-Resolved-Unexplained-Events-Formerly?autologincheck=redirected",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "States that the patient's altered level of responsiveness can be associated with BRUE.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "From the prompt: 'A 3-month-old male infant presents to the emergency room with his parents, who are concerned about an altered consciousness.' 'The term BRUE is defined as an event occurring in an infant younger than 1 year when the observer reports a sudden, brief, and now resolved episode of \u22651 of the following: (1) cyanosis or pallor; (2) absent, decreased, or irregular breathing; (3) marked change in tone (hyper- or hypotonia); and (4) altered level of responsiveness.' https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/137/5/e20160590/52195/Brief-Resolved-Unexplained-Events-Formerly?autologincheck=redirected",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "States that the patient's physical exam is normal in the emergency room.",
"sources": "patient infor.pdf",
"justification": "From the patient infor.pdf: 'On examination, he is well appearing, pink in color. Vitals include: Pulse: 140 bpm O2 Sat: 98% in room air Temp: 98.4\u00b0F His lungs are clear to auscultation Cardiac exam is normal Neurological exam is normal Abdominal exam is normal Skin, extremities, ENT are all normal.'",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 9": {
"description": "States that the patient's clinical presentation is resolved prior to the emergency room.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "From the prompt: 'After approximately 40-50 seconds, he regained consciousness and started crying. His color and muscle strength returned to normal. Paramedics arrived, evaluated him, and recommended that the parents bring him to the emergency room for further assessment.'",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 10": {
"description": "States that BRUE should not be explained by an identifiable medical condition.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "TABLE 1 BRUE Definition and Factors for Inclusion and Exclusion https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/137/5/e20160590/52195/Brief-Resolved-Unexplained-Events-Formerly?autologincheck=redirected",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 11": {
"description": "States that the patient has gastroesophageal reflux (GER).",
"sources": "",
"justification": "From the patient infor.pdf: 'He has been diagnosed with gastroesophageal reflux due to frequent spitting up episodes. He is not on any medications. The parents report feeling terrified when this occurred because it has never happened to him before, they would like to figure out why this happened and get him treated for it.'",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
10
]
},
"criterion 12": {
"description": "States that the patient's GER is untreated.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "From the patient infor.pdf: 'He has been diagnosed with gastroesophageal reflux due to frequent spitting up episodes. He is not on any medications. The parents report feeling terrified when this occurred because it has never happened to him before, they would like to figure out why this happened and get him treated for it.'",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
11
]
},
"criterion 13": {
"description": "States that the milk is present in the patient's nose during CPR.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "From the prompt: 'She attempted CPR by shaking him and providing rescue breaths through mouth and nose. During the episode, she also suctioned some milky discharge from his nose and mouth.'",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 14": {
"description": "States that the milk is present in the patient's mouth during CPR.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "From the prompt: 'She attempted CPR by shaking him and providing rescue breaths through mouth and nose. During the episode, she also suctioned some milky discharge from his nose and mouth.'",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 15": {
"description": "States that the patient's apnea is more likely associated with a GER event.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "The presence of milk in the nose and mouth indicates a reflux event. The patient has untreated GER, so overall the patient's clinical presentation is more likely due to GER. https://www.texaschildrens.org/content/wellness/why-my-baby-spitting-so-much-breast-milk#:~:text=Many%20babies%20who%20still%20spit,that%20case%2C%20consult%20your%20pediatrician.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
4,
12
]
},
"criterion 16": {
"description": "Concludes that the patient's clinical presentation is not a BRUE event.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "The presence of milk in the nose and mouth indicates a reflux event. The patient has untreated GER, so overall the patient's clinical presentation is more likely due to GER. TABLE 1 BRUE Definition and Factors for Inclusion and Exclusion https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/137/5/e20160590/52195/Brief-Resolved-Unexplained-Events-Formerly?autologincheck=redirected https://www.texaschildrens.org/content/wellness/why-my-baby-spitting-so-much-breast-milk#:~:text=Many%20babies%20who%20still%20spit,that%20case%2C%20consult%20your%20pediatrician.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1,
2,
3,
5,
6,
7,
9,
15
]
},
"criterion 17": {
"description": "Concludes that the next step in management is to treat the patient's underlying GER.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "The patient has untreated GER, so the next step in management should be to treat the patient's underlying GER.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
16
]
}
}
|
documents/1513/patient history.pdf
|
1,555
|
Medicine
|
Charles is a 63-year-old man with a past medical history of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and hyperlipidemia who presents to his primary care doctor for continued bilateral ear discomfort.
The patient was initially seen about 2 weeks ago after flying home from a trip to Barbados with a 3-day history of bilateral ear pain and drainage from the ear canals. On exam, bilateral tympanic membranes were intact, and white mucus was present in both ear canals. The patient was diagnosed with acute otitis externa, underwent bilateral ear lavage in-office, and was sent home with ofloxacin topical solution. The patient reported some immediate relief after the lavage; however, he messaged his doctor 5 days later, reporting increased pain and white drainage from the ears. He returned for another in-office lavage and was started on oral therapy with ciprofloxacin, given the failure of topical management. The patient follows up again 5 days later and reports worsening bilateral ear pain and irritation that are keeping him up at night.
Refer to the attached document (1555 Patient Information (2).pdf) for additional patient information for this visit.
Identify the most likely etiology of the patient's persistent symptoms and provide the clinical rationale, including at least 3 risk factors for this condition.
What diagnostic test should be performed at this time to confirm the suspected etiology?
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "Identifies the most likely cause of the patient's symptoms as otomycosis.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Identifying the likely cause of the patient's symptoms as otomycosis relies on identifying the patient's otorrhea, otalgia, lack of pain on palpation, pruritus, tinnitus, and failure of antibiotic treatment. 'Otomycosis is a common superficial fungal infection that affects the external auditory canal (EAC). The infection may present as acute, subacute, or chronic, and is typically unilateral, with the bilateral form being more common in immunocompromised patients. The infection is present globally, with prevalence ranging from 9% to 30% in patients with the signs and symptoms of EAC infection [1,2,3]. The most common causative agents of otomycosis are molds of the genus Aspergillus and yeasts of the genus Candida, particularly Aspergillus (A.) niger complex and Candida (C.) albicans... Factors contributing to the development of otomycosis are categorized into environmental and host-derived. The warm and humid climate of tropical and subtropical regions is the most significant external risk factor, so it is not surprising that highest prevalence of otomycosis is recorded in these areas [24,25]. Host-derived risk factors include the specific anatomical features of the EAC, excessive cerumen secretion, local trauma of the ear canal, use of hearing aids with an occlusive mold, and immunocompromised health status. Otomycosis can also occur secondary to previous bacterial infection of EAC treated with topical antibacterial drugs.' https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10302809/",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
10,
11,
12,
13,
15
]
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "Identifies that the patient has otorrhea.",
"sources": "1555 Patient Information (2).pdf",
"justification": "From the 1555 Patient Information (2).pdf attachment: 'Ears: excoriations of the bilateral ear canals with mild erythema, yellow discharge, no tenderness to palpation, and intact tympanic membranes.' Otorrhea is considered ear discharge.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "Identifies that the presence of otorrhea is consistent with the diagnosis of otomycosis.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Infection is typically associated with a range of symptoms, including itching, otorrhea, and the sensation of ear canal blockage.' https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10302809/ Otorrhea is described in otomycosis as: 'Typically fluffy and white to off-white discharge, but may be black, gray, bluish-green or yellow; small black or white conidiophores on white hyphae associated with Aspergillus.' https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/2001/0301/p927.html",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "Identifies that the patient has otalgia.",
"sources": "1555 Patient Information (2).pdf",
"justification": "From the 1555 Patient Information (2).pdf attachment: 'Endorses bilateral otalgia.'",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "Identifies that the presence of otalgia is consistent with the diagnosis of otomycosis.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Infection is typically associated with a range of symptoms, including itching, otorrhea, and the sensation of ear canal blockage. Pain, which can vary in severity, headache, and tinnitus are also common... When symptoms are present, discomfort is again the most common complaint, but in fungal otitis externa this primarily takes the form of pruritus and a feeling of fullness in the ear. ' https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10302809/",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "States that the patient has a lack of auricular tenderness to palpation.",
"sources": "1555 Patient Information (2).pdf",
"justification": "From the 1555 Patient Information (2).pdf attachment: 'Ears: excoriations of the bilateral ear canals with mild erythema, yellow discharge, no tenderness to palpation, and intact tympanic membrane.'",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "Identifies that a lack of auricular tenderness to palpation is consistent with the diagnosis of otomycosis.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "As opposed to a diagnosis such as malignant otitis externa where out of proportion tenderness is seen on exam, the pain in otomycosis presents as fullness or pruritus typically. 'When symptoms are present, discomfort is again the most common complaint, but in fungal otitis externa this primarily takes the form of pruritus and a feeling of fullness in the ear. ' https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10302809/",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "Identifies that the patient has excoriations of the bilateral ear canals.",
"sources": "1555 Patient Information (2).pdf",
"justification": "From the 1555 Patient Information (2).pdf attachment: 'Ears: excoriations of the bilateral ear canals with mild erythema, yellow discharge, no tenderness to palpation, and intact tympanic membrane.'",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 9": {
"description": "Identifies that excoriations of the bilateral ear canals can be consistent with pruritus.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Pruritus, or itching, often presents with excoriations of the epidermis due to repeated trauma from scratching the area. 'There are no specific skin signs associated with pruritus, apart from scratch marks (excoriations) and signs of the underlying condition.' https://dermnetnz.org/topics/pruritus",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 10": {
"description": "Identifies that the patient likely has pruritus of the bilateral ear canals.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Infection is typically associated with a range of symptoms, including itching, otorrhea, and the sensation of ear canal blockage.' https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10302809/ 'The pruritus may be quite intense, resulting in scratching and further damage to the epidermis.' https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/2001/0301/p927.html#afp20010301p927-t2",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
8,
9
]
},
"criterion 11": {
"description": "Identifies that presence of ear pruritus is consistent with the diagnosis of otomycosis.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Infection is typically associated with a range of symptoms, including itching, otorrhea, and the sensation of ear canal blockage.' https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10302809/ 'The pruritus may be quite intense, resulting in scratching and further damage to the epidermis.' https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/2001/0301/p927.html#afp20010301p927-t2",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 12": {
"description": "Identifies that the patient has tinnitus.",
"sources": "1555 Patient Information (2).pdf",
"justification": "From the 1555 Patient Information (2).pdf attachment: 'Endorses intermittent bilateral tinnitus over the past few days.'",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 13": {
"description": "Identifies that presence of tinnitus is consistent with the diagnosis of otomycosis.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Infection is typically associated with a range of symptoms, including itching, otorrhea, and the sensation of ear canal blockage. Pain, which can vary in severity, headache, and tinnitus are also common. EAC edema and redness, desquamation of the epithelium, and impaired hearing are often clinical findings present in patients with otomycosis' https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10302809/",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 14": {
"description": "Recognizes that antibiotics do not treat fungal ear infections.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Recognizing the patient's lack of response to multiple antibiotics is a key step in making the correct diagnosis. 'Antibiotics cannot treat fungal infections and can even increase the risk of fungal infections.' https://www.cdc.gov/fungal/about/index.html",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 15": {
"description": "Identifies that the patient's lack of response to antibiotics is consistent with a diagnosis of otomycosis.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "From the prompt: 'He returned for another in-office lavage and was started on oral therapy with ciprofloxacin, given the failure of topical management. The patient follows up again 5 days later and reports worsening bilateral ear pain and irritation that are keeping him up at night.' Lack of response to antibiotics supports a non-bacterial etiology. 'Antibiotics cannot treat fungal infections and can even increase the risk of fungal infections.' https://www.cdc.gov/fungal/about/index.html",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
14
]
},
"criterion 16": {
"description": "Identifies the patient's recent antibiotic use as a risk factor for otomycosis.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "From the prompt: 'The patient was diagnosed with acute otitis externa, underwent bilateral ear lavage in-office, and was sent home with ofloxacin topical solution.' From the prompt: 'He returned for another in-office lavage and was started on oral therapy with ciprofloxacin, given the failure of topical management.' 'Otomycosis can also occur secondary to previous bacterial infection of EAC treated with topical antibacterial drugs.' https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10302809/ 'Antibiotics cannot treat fungal infections and can even increase the risk of fungal infections.' https://www.cdc.gov/fungal/about/index.html",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1
]
},
"criterion 17": {
"description": "Identifies that Barbados has a high prevalence of otomycosis.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "To determine risk factors for the patient's condition, it's important to recognize that Barbados is a tropical region. The prevalence of otomycosis is higher in warm, humid climates. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbados",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 18": {
"description": "Identifies the patient's recent travel to Barbados as a risk factor for otomycosis.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "From the prompt: 'The patient was initially seen about 2 weeks ago after flying home from a trip to Barbados with a 3-day history of bilateral ear pain and drainage from the ear canals.' 'Factors contributing to the development of otomycosis are categorized into environmental and host-derived. The warm and humid climate of tropical and subtropical regions is the most significant external risk factor, so it is not surprising that highest prevalence of otomycosis is recorded in these areas' https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10302809/",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
17,
1
]
},
"criterion 19": {
"description": "Identifies that the patient has diabetes.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "From the prompt: 'Charles is a 63-year-old man with a past medical history of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and hyperlipidemia who presents to his primary care doctor for continued bilateral ear discomfort.'",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 20": {
"description": "Identifies that diabetes is an immunocompromising condition.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "In order to fully assess risk factors for otomycosis, it is important to identify that diabetes is considered an immunocompromising condition. This sort of condition inherently places a patient at higher risk of developing infections. 'Hyperglycemia in diabetes is thought to cause dysfunction of the immune response, which fails to control the spread of invading pathogens in diabetic subjects. Therefore, diabetic subjects are known to more susceptible to infections. The increased prevalence of T2D will increase the incidence of infectious diseases and related comorbidities.' https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7475801/",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 21": {
"description": "Identifies the patient's diabetes as a risk factor for otomycosis.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Host-derived risk factors include the specific anatomical features of the EAC, excessive cerumen secretion, local trauma of the ear canal, use of hearing aids with an occlusive mold, and immunocompromised health status.' https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10302809/",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
19,
20,
1
]
},
"criterion 22": {
"description": "Recommends microscopic evaluation of sample from the external auditory canal.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Laboratory-based evidence for otomycosis diagnosis is obtained using conventional methods. Microscopic examination is an easy, low-cost, and fast method that is irreplaceable for detecting fungi in patient material. Wet mount (native or with chloralactophenol or KOH) is still a convenient technique for screening and direct microscopy examination, providing prompt detection of fungal blastoconidia\u2013yeast and pseudohyphal\u2013hyphal forms in patient material' https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10302809/",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1
]
},
"criterion 23": {
"description": "Recommends a wet mount preparation for microscopy.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "'Laboratory-based evidence for otomycosis diagnosis is obtained using conventional methods. Microscopic examination is an easy, low-cost, and fast method that is irreplaceable for detecting fungi in patient material. Wet mount (native or with chloralactophenol or KOH) is still a convenient technique for screening and direct microscopy examination, providing prompt detection of fungal blastoconidia\u2013yeast and pseudohyphal\u2013hyphal forms in patient material' https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10302809/",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
22
]
}
}
|
documents/1555/1555 Patient Information (2).pdf
|
145
|
Consulting
|
I'm making a plan for our client’s next campaign cycle using the attached data, where Payment ($) is equivalent to the unit price associated with the payment method of the specific campaign. Could you calculate how much my client would save in $ if we discard 30% of their worst performing campaigns in terms of impressions per $? Could you also calculate the average impressions per $ for each payment method, assuming we don’t discard any of the current campaigns and that the average is taken using total impressions for each payment method? Based on this calculation, which payment method group performs the best? Finally, could you list the most significant benefit of moving our campaign plan away from variable cost over to fixed? Please report all numeric answers rounded to two decimal places.
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "States the money freed up from disregarding the 30% worst performing campaigns in terms of impressions per $ as $702,062.52. (Acceptable range is $698,000.00 to $705,000.00)",
"sources": "Campaign_Portfolio.csv",
"justification": "We need to use the file 'Campaign_Portfolio.csv' to calculate the impressions per $ per campaign to identify the 30 % worst performing ones. The file has 100 campaigns, meaning 30 of them are to be discarded. For each campaign, we must calculate the impressions per $. In column I, the payment method of each campaign is listed. There are 3 types of payment methods used; Pay Per Impressions, Pay Per Click, and Fixed Price. To calculate the impressions per $, we must use different formulas for each payment method. 1) Impressions per $ for Fixed Price payment method Formula: Impressions per $ for Fixed Price = [Total_Impressions (Col. K)] / [Payment ($) (Col. J)] 2) Impressions per $ for Pay Per Impressions payment method Formula: Impressions per $ for Pay Per Impressions = 1 / [Payment ($) (Col. J)] 3) Impressions per $ for Pay Per Click payment method Formula: Impressions per $ for Pay Per Click = [Total_Impressions (Col. K)] * {[Payment ($) (Col. J)] / [Total_Clicks (Col. L)]} Then sort to find the worst/lowest performing 30 campaigns. To calculate the total cost for each campaign, we must also use different methods depending on the payment method. 1) Campaign Total Cost for Fixed Price = [Payment ($) (Col. J)] 2) Campaign Total Cost for Pay Per Impressions = [Total_Impressions (Col. K)] * [Payment ($) (Col. J)] 3) Campaign Total Cost for Pay Per Click = [Payment ($) (Col. J)] * [Total_Clicks (Col. L)] The 30 worst performing campaigns are: Campaign ID Campaign Cost Impressions per $ 12 26788.80 5.00 13 36963.00 5.00 14 36372.00 5.00 32 24154.60 5.00 33 32635.20 5.00 34 37165.00 5.00 35 27125.20 5.00 36 28560.80 5.00 37 32247.60 5.00 38 45804.00 5.00 82 30202.20 5.00 83 16697.20 5.00 84 17934.00 5.00 93 20370.00 5.00 94 42577.80 5.00 95 18417.00 5.00 96 27493.20 5.00 99 12188.00 5.51 1 34408.80 5.56 2 14539.50 5.56 3 11028.60 5.56 27 17811.36 5.56 28 15491.52 5.56 60 19732.50 5.56 61 7367.76 5.56 62 14261.40 5.56 63 24378.48 5.56 48 7384.00 5.58 4 10224.00 6.38 47 11739.00 6.38 For a total campaign cost to be freed up = $702,062.52. Rounded to $702,062.52 per prompt.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "States that the average impressions per $ for the Fixed Price payment method as 9.15. (Acceptable range is 9.05 to 9.25)",
"sources": "Campaign_Portfolio.csv",
"justification": "We need to use the file 'Campaign_Portfolio.csv' to calculate the impressions per $ per campaign to identify the 30 worst performing ones. In column I, the payment method of each campaign is listed. There are 3 types of payment methods used; Pay Per Impressions, Pay Per Click, and Fixed Price. We must calculate the impressions per $ for the campaigns with Fixed Price as the payment method. Sum the total costs and total impressions across campaigns with Fixed Price. Then calculate the impressions per $: Impressions per $ = SUM[Total_Impressions] / SUM[Total Campaign Costs] This yields the following data: Campaign Cost Total_Impressions Impressions per $ Fixed Price 348289.00 3185256.00 9.1454 The average impressions per $ across campaigns with the Fixed Price payment method is thus rounded to 9.15 per prompt",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "States that the average impressions per $ for the Pay Per Impressions payment method as 5.80. (Acceptable range is 5.70 to 5.90)",
"sources": "Campaign_Portfolio.csv",
"justification": "We need to use the file 'Campaign_Portfolio.csv' to calculate the impressions per $ per campaign to identify the 30 worst performing ones. In column I, the payment method of each campaign is listed. There are 3 types of payment methods used; Pay Per Impressions, Pay Per Click, and Fixed Price. We must calculate the total cost for each campaign with Pay Per Impression as the payment method. A) Campaign Total Cost for Pay Per Impressions = [Total_Impressions (Col. K)] * [Payment ($) (Col. J)] Then we sum the total costs and total impressions across these campaigns. To get impressions per $, we must use the following formula: Impressions per $ = SUM[Total_Impressions] / SUM[Total Campaign Costs] This yields the following data: Campaign Cost Total_Impressions Impressions per $ Pay Per Impression 1165996.02 6760772.00 5.798 The average impressions per $ across campaigns with the Pay Per Impression payment method is thus rounded to 5.80 per prompt.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "States that the average impressions per $ for the Pay Per Click payment method as 9.72. (Acceptable range is 9.62 to 9.82)",
"sources": "Campaign_Portfolio.csv",
"justification": "We need to use the file 'Campaign_Portfolio.csv' to calculate the impressions per $ per campaign to identify the 30 worst performing ones. In column I, the payment method of each campaign is listed. There are 3 types of payment methods used; Pay Per Impressions, Pay Per Click, and Fixed Price. We must calculate the total cost for each campaign with Pay Per Click as the payment method. A) Campaign Total Cost for Pay Per Click = [Payment ($) (Col. J)] * [Total_Clicks (Col. L)] Then we sum the total costs and total impressions across these campaigns. To get impressions per $, we must use the following formula: Impressions per $ = SUM[Total_Impressions] / SUM[Total Campaign Costs] This yields the following data: Campaign Cost Total_Impressions Impressions per $ Pay Per Click 410696.45 3990296.00 9.716 The average impressions per $ across campaigns with the Pay Per Click payment method is thus rounded to 9.72 per prompt.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "States that the group of campaigns with the Pay Per Click Payment Method performs the best in terms of impressions per $.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "As noted in criterion 12327, the average impressions per $ for the Fixed Price payment method is 9.15. As noted in criterion 12328, the average impressions per $ for the Pay Per Impressions payment method is 5.80. As noted in criterion 12329, the average impressions per $ for the Pay Per Click payment method is 9.72. The group of campaigns with the Pay Per Click Payment Method thus performs the best in terms of impressions per $.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
2,
3,
4
]
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "Lists at least one of the following benefits for moving campaigns to fixed costs: - Alignment with Partner on budget, giving budget certainty - Bot fraud avoidance - Big upside potential if campaign goes viral - Negotiation power towards Partner by committing to a full price upfront.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "- Alignment with Partner on budget, giving budget certainty With fixed prices there are no surprises on final budget for the campaign. It makes it easier to make a budget for the next marketing cycle. - Bot fraud avoidance With campaigns that have variable costs, there is a risk of paying for bots as opposed to real people. - Big upside potential if campaign goes viral If a campaign gains a lot of traction in terms of both impressions and clicks, then a fixed price entails a big upside as the costs do not increase in proportion to campaign performance. - Negotiation power towards Partner by committing to a full price upfront. Some partners may encourage with package deals where you get certain extra benefits as you are able to commit to an investment upfront.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "The bottom 30% of campaigns in terms of impressions per $ had an impression per $ below or equal to 6.38. (Acceptable range is 6.30 to 6.44)",
"sources": "Campaign_Portfolio.csv",
"justification": "We need to use the file 'Campaign_Portfolio.csv' to calculate the impressions per $ per campaign to identify the 30 worst performing ones. The file has 100 campaigns, meaning 30 of them are to be discarded. For each campaign, we must calculate the impressions per $. In column I, the payment method of each campaign is listed. There are 3 types of payment methods used; Pay Per Impressions, Pay Per Click, and Fixed Price. To calculate the impressions per $, we must use different formulas for each payment method. 1) Impressions per $ for Fixed Price payment method Formula: Impressions per $ for Fixed Price = [Total_Impressions (Col. K)] / [Payment ($) (Col. J)] 2) Impressions per $ for Pay Per Impressions payment method Formula: Impressions per $ for Pay Per Impressions = 1 / [Payment ($) (Col. J)] 3) Impressions per $ for Pay Per Click payment method Formula: Impressions per $ for Pay Per Click = [Total_Impressions (Col. K)] / {[Payment ($) (Col. J)] * [Total_Clicks (Col. L)]} Then sort to find the worst/lowest performing 30 campaigns. To calculate the total cost for each campaign, we must also use different methods depending on the payment method. 1) Campaign Total Cost for Fixed Price = [Payment ($) (Col. J)] 2) Campaign Total Cost for Pay Per Impressions = [Total_Impressions (Col. K)] * [Payment ($) (Col. J)] 3) Campaign Total Cost for Pay Per Click = [Payment ($) (Col. J)] * [Total_Clicks (Col. L)] The 30 worst performing campaigns are: Campaign ID Campaign Cost Impressions per $ 12 26788.80 5.00 13 36963.00 5.00 14 36372.00 5.00 32 24154.60 5.00 33 32635.20 5.00 34 37165.00 5.00 35 27125.20 5.00 36 28560.80 5.00 37 32247.60 5.00 38 45804.00 5.00 82 30202.20 5.00 83 16697.20 5.00 84 17934.00 5.00 93 20370.00 5.00 94 42577.80 5.00 95 18417.00 5.00 96 27493.20 5.00 99 12188.00 5.51 1 34408.80 5.56 2 14539.50 5.56 3 11028.60 5.56 27 17811.36 5.56 28 15491.52 5.56 60 19732.50 5.56 61 7367.76 5.56 62 14261.40 5.56 63 24378.48 5.56 48 7384.00 5.58 4 10224.00 6.38 47 11739.00 6.38 The maximum impressions per $ for the worst performing campaigns is thus 6.38.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
}
}
|
documents/145/Campaign_Portfolio.csv
|
283
|
Consulting
|
Our client, a food delivery app focused on Mexican food, is requesting assistance using the enclosed dataset on all of their merchants to determine which Size category of merchant they should focus their efforts on to try and increase their share of merchant revenue and, as a consequence, their overall app revenue. Could you determine the potential revenue increase (in $M to one decimal) associated with targeting each category of merchant by Size and then recommend which Size category the client should focus on for their efforts, assuming this is based purely on the revenue potential? Could you also include at least one reason why that may not be the best choice, based only on the provided data set and associated analysis?
For the purpose of this analysis, the client has categorized each of their merchants by merchant Size (which reflects the scale of each merchants' Estimated Total Delivery Revenue, both within and outside of the app) as well as by merchant Loyalty to the client's app (which reflects the app's Estimated Share of Revenue from each merchant's Total Delivery Revenue). The client considers Size and Loyalty to be their two essential merchant categories, and views any combination of the merchant Size category and Loyalty category to be a segment.
To calculate the potential revenue increase associated with targeting each category by merchant Size, please follow the client's assumptions: Merchants with an estimated total delivery revenue above $75M are all considered outliers and should be excluded fully from the analysis. The app cannot increase the share of merchant revenue for merchants in the high Loyalty-Big Size segment. Other high Loyalty merchants can realize an increase in their share of merchant revenue up to the highest current average share of merchant revenue (per segment) of any segment. For low and average Loyalty merchants: merchants in the small, medium and big Size categories can realize an increase in their share of merchant revenue of 20, 10 and 1 percentage points above the current average share of merchant revenue of the segment they belong to, respectively. The average share of merchant revenue to be used in these calculations is always weighted by total estimated delivery revenue and rounded to the nearest percentage point.
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "Calculates the average Share of revenue for the Low loyalty-Small size segment as 22% (acceptable value is 22%)",
"sources": "SOW v2.xlsx",
"justification": "Applying the fomula =ROUND(SUMIFS($B:$B,$E:$E,'Low',$F:$F,'Small')/SUMIFS($D:$D,$E:$E,'Low',$F:$F,'Small'),2) to SoW v2, we get 22%",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "Calculates the average Share of revenue for the Average loyalty-Small size segment as 54% (acceptable value is 54%)",
"sources": "SOW v2.xlsx",
"justification": "Applying the fomula =ROUND(SUMIFS($B:$B,$E:$E,'Average',$F:$F,'Small')/SUMIFS($D:$D,$E:$E,'Average',$F:$F,'Small'),2) to SoW v2, we get 54%",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "Calculates the average Share of revenue for the High loyalty-Small size segment as 80% (acceptable value is 80%)",
"sources": "SOW v2.xlsx",
"justification": "Applying the fomula =ROUND(SUMIFS($B:$B,$E:$E,'High',$F:$F,'Small')/SUMIFS($D:$D,$E:$E,'High',$F:$F,'Small'),2) to SoW v2, we get 80%",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "Calculates the average Share of revenue for the Low loyalty-Medium size segment as 20% (acceptable value is 20%)",
"sources": "SOW v2.xlsx",
"justification": "Applying the fomula =ROUND(SUMIFS($B:$B,$E:$E,'Low',$F:$F,'Medium')/SUMIFS($D:$D,$E:$E,'Low',$F:$F,'Medium'),2) to SoW v2, we get 20%",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "Calculates the average Share of revenue for the Average loyalty-Medium size segment as 52% (acceptable value is 52%)",
"sources": "SOW v2.xlsx",
"justification": "Applying the fomula =ROUND(SUMIFS($B:$B,$E:$E,'Average',$F:$F,'Medium')/SUMIFS($D:$D,$E:$E,'Average',$F:$F,'Medium'),2) to SoW v2, we get 52%",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "Calculates the average Share of revenue for the High loyalty-Medium size segment as 80% (acceptable value is 80%)",
"sources": "SOW v2.xlsx",
"justification": "Applying the fomula =ROUND(SUMIFS($B:$B,$E:$E,'High',$F:$F,'Medium')/SUMIFS($D:$D,$E:$E,'High',$F:$F,'Medium'),2) to SoW v2, we get 80%",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "Calculates the average Share of revenue for the Low loyalty-Big size segment as 20% (acceptable value is 20%)",
"sources": "SOW v2.xlsx",
"justification": "Applying the fomula =ROUND(SUMIFS($B:$B,$E:$E,'Low',$F:$F,'Big')/SUMIFS($D:$D,$E:$E,'Low',$F:$F,'Big'),2) to SoW v2, we get 20%",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "Calculates the average Share of revenue for the Average loyalty-Big size segment as 53% (acceptable value is 53%)",
"sources": "SOW v2.xlsx",
"justification": "Applying the fomula =ROUND(SUMIFS($B:$B,$E:$E,'Average',$F:$F,'Big')/SUMIFS($D:$D,$E:$E,'Average',$F:$F,'Big'),2) to SoW v2, we get 53%",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 9": {
"description": "Calculates the average Share of revenue for the High loyalty-Big size segment as 85% (acceptable value is 85%)",
"sources": "SOW v2.xlsx",
"justification": "Applying the fomula =ROUND(SUMIFS($B:$B,$E:$E,'High',$F:$F,'Big')/SUMIFS($D:$D,$E:$E,'High',$F:$F,'Big'),2) to SoW v2, we get 85%",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 10": {
"description": "Calculates the potential revenue increase of targeting Small size merchants as $24.9M (acceptable range is 24.8M to 25.0M)",
"sources": "SOW v2.xlsx",
"justification": "After calculating the average shares of revenue per segment, we need to apply the potential increase row by row (we cannot calculate using aggregate numbers per segment because we should only consider the upside for merchants, i.e. merchants that are already at or above their potential increase should not be brought down). The formula on excel is =IF(AND(E2='High',F2='Big'),0,IF(E2='High',MAX(85%-C2/100,0),IF(F2='Small',IF(E2='Low',MAX(22%+20%-C2/100,0),MAX(54%+20%-C2/100,0)),IF(F2='Medium',IF(E2='Low',MAX(20%+10%-C2/100,0),MAX(52%+10%-C2/100,0)),IF(E2='Low',MAX(20%+1%-C2/100,0),MAX(53%+1%-C2/100,0))))))*D2 that we can add to column H We then sum it up per size: =ROUND(SUMIFS($H:$H,$F:$F,[size])/1000000,1) Small 24.9 Medium 38.5 Big 37.6 Dependencies are the segments involving small size and all 3 involving high loyalty. This is because low and average loyalty categories can only increase in relation to their segments (so low-small and average-small), but high loyalty increases to up to the segment with highest share of wallet. Since loyalty is determined by share of wallet, we only have to look at the segments with high loyalty merchants to find the highest average share of wallet of a segment",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9
]
},
"criterion 11": {
"description": "Calculates the potential revenue increase of targeting Medium size merchants as $38.5M (acceptable range is 38.4M to 38.6M)",
"sources": "SOW v2.xlsx",
"justification": "After calculating the average shares of wallet per segment, we need to apply the potential increase row by row (we cannot calculate using aggregate numbers per segment because we should only consider the upside for merchants, i.e. merchants that are already at or above their potential increase should not be brought down). The formula on excel is =IF(AND(E2='High',F2='Big'),0,IF(E2='High',MAX(85%-C2/100,0),IF(F2='Small',IF(E2='Low',MAX(22%+20%-C2/100,0),MAX(54%+20%-C2/100,0)),IF(F2='Medium',IF(E2='Low',MAX(20%+10%-C2/100,0),MAX(52%+10%-C2/100,0)),IF(E2='Low',MAX(20%+1%-C2/100,0),MAX(53%+1%-C2/100,0))))))*D2 that we can add to column H We then sum it up per size: =ROUND(SUMIFS($H:$H,$F:$F,[size])/1000000,1) Small 24.9 Medium 38.5 Big 37.6 Dependencies are the segments involving medium size and all 3 involving high loyalty. This is because low and average loyalty categories can only increase in relation to their segments (so low-mediumand average-medium), but high loyalty increases to up to the segment with highest share of wallet. Since loyalty is determined by share of wallet, we only have to look at the segments with high loyalty merchants to find the highest average share of wallet of a segment",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9
]
},
"criterion 12": {
"description": "Calculates the potential revenue increase of targeting Big size merchants as $37.6M (acceptable range is 37.5M to 37.7M)",
"sources": "SOW v2.xlsx",
"justification": "After calculating the average shares of wallet per segment, we need to apply the potential increase row by row (we cannot calculate using aggregate numbers per segment because we should only consider the upside for merchants, i.e. merchants that are already at or above their potential increase should not be brought down). The formula on excel is =IF(AND(E2='High',F2='Big'),0,IF(E2='High',MAX(85%-C2/100,0),IF(F2='Small',IF(E2='Low',MAX(22%+20%-C2/100,0),MAX(54%+20%-C2/100,0)),IF(F2='Medium',IF(E2='Low',MAX(20%+10%-C2/100,0),MAX(52%+10%-C2/100,0)),IF(E2='Low',MAX(20%+1%-C2/100,0),MAX(53%+1%-C2/100,0))))))*D2 that we can add to column H We then sum it up per size: =ROUND(SUMIFS($H:$H,$F:$F,[size])/1000000,1) Small 24.9 Medium 38.5 Big 37.6 Dependencies are the segments involving big size and all 3 involving high loyalty. This is because low and average loyalty categories can only increase in relation to their segments (so low-big and average-big), but high loyalty increases to up to the segment with highest share of wallet. Since loyalty is determined by share of wallet, we only have to look at the segments with high loyalty merchants to find the highest average share of wallet of a segment",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9
]
},
"criterion 13": {
"description": "Recommends a focus on the Medium size category when based purely on revenue potential",
"sources": "",
"justification": "From criteria 13072, 13073 and 13074, we get: Small 24.9 Medium 38.5 Big 37.6 The prompt asks for the decision to be made purely on revenue potential. Since 38.5>37.6>24.9, we recommend the Medium size merchants",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
10,
11,
12
]
},
"criterion 14": {
"description": "Lists at least one of the following as a reason why prioritizing the Medium size may not be the best choice: -Medium size category has many more merchants than Big size category -Adding one decimal to the share of merchant revenue percentages switches the answer to the Big size category -Any progress made on outliers makes the big size more promising -Estimates for big merchants seem conservative versus for medium merchants -Estimates should be done more granularly based on size - The provided data set does not include other key decision criteria (e.g., cost to implement the revenue growth strategy, availability of staff, alignment with client vision, competitor moves)",
"sources": "SOW v2.xlsx",
"justification": "There are many reasons why the choice would be different: -Medium size category has many more merchants than Big size category: There are 372 merchants in the medium category, versus 48 non-outlier merchants in the big category (extraction) -Adding one decimal to the share of wallet percentages switches the answer to the Big size category. If we include one decimal in the share of wallets used (=ROUND([SoW calc],3)), the results become Small 24.7 Medium 37.4 Big 37.6 (extraction) -Any progress made on outliers makes the big size more promising (reasoning based on criteria 13074 and 13073 + extraction to see the numbers for outliers) -Estimates for big merchants seem conservative versus for medium merchants (avg + 10% is much more generous than average + 1%, especially when we consider that many values are very near the cutoff from medium to big) -Estimates should be done more granularly based on size (following the point above)",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
13
]
}
}
|
documents/283/SoW v2 (2).csv
|
352
|
Consulting
|
The COO of my client, an apparel e-commerce website, has raised questions about the high turnaround time reported by multiple customers and is requesting a review of the enclosed last nine months of data to help understand the magnitude of the problem. Could you calculate the percentage of orders that were delivered in the same month as order placement? Then, could you determine the average days taken to complete each of the following order milestones: from ordered to processed, processed to shipped and shipped to delivered? Could you then determine which of these milestones have room to improve compared to industry benchmarks, which are 2.0 days from ordered to processed, 2.5 days from processed to shipped and 4 days from shipped to delivered? For any stages that have room to improve, could you provide the percentage of orders that have a turnaround time that exceeds the market benchmark? For these same lower-performing stages, could you recommend to the client how they could bring their performance in line with industry standards? Round all percentages to the nearest whole percentage and round all days output to one decimal place.
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "Calculates the number of orders delivered in same month as order placement as 200 (Acceptable value is 200).",
"sources": "Order Details.csv",
"justification": "In the attached dataset, create columns 'Order Month' and 'Delivery Month' and populate them, for each order, using =MONTH(B2:B253) and =MONTH(E2:E253), respectively. Then count orders where Order Month = Delivery Month and get 200 orders. The total orders in the dataset is 252. Therefore, there are 200 out of 252 orders that have same month of order placement and delivery.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "Calculates the percentage of orders delivered in the same month as order placement as 79%. (Acceptable value is 79%)",
"sources": "Order Details.csv",
"justification": "In the attached dataset, create columns 'Order Month' and 'Delivery Month' and populate them, for each order, using =MONTH(B2:B253) and =MONTH(E2:E253), respectively. Then count orders where Order Month = Delivery Month and get 200 orders. The total orders in the dataset is 252. Therefore, there are 200 (criteria 12170) out of 252 orders that have same month of order placement and delivery. This gives (200/252)*100 = 79.36507937% = 79%, rounded to the nearest whole percentage per prompt",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1
]
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "Calculates average time from ordered to processed as 2.0 days (Acceptable value is 2.0 days)",
"sources": "Order Details.csv",
"justification": "Using the attached datafile, create a column 'Order processing days' and populate it by calculating the number of days between order date and processing date per order using =days(Processed_Date,Order_Date). Therefore, average order processing days using =average(Order processing days column). This gives 1.988095238 = 2.0 days, rounded to nearest one decimal place.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "Calculates average time from processed to shipped as 3.1 days (Acceptable value is 3.1days)",
"sources": "Order Details.csv",
"justification": "Using the attached datafile, create a column 'Order Shipping days' and populate it by calculating the number of days between processing date and shipping date per order using =days(Shipped_Date,Processed_Date). Therefore, average order shipping days using =average(Order shipping days column). This gives 3.071428571 = 3.1 days, rounded to nearest one decimal place per prompt.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "Calculates average time from shipped to delivered as 3.6 days (Acceptable value is 3.6 days)",
"sources": "Order Details.csv",
"justification": "Using the attached datafile, create a column 'Order Delivery days' and populate it by calculating the number of days between shipping date and delivery date per order using =days(Delivery_Date,Shipped_Date). Therefore, average order delivery days using =average(Order Delivery days column). This gives 3.595238095 = 3.6 days, rounded to nearest one decimal place per prompt.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "States that the milestone from processed to shipped has room to improve compared to Market Benchmark",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "Based on criterion 12179, the average days taken to ship an order is 3.1. The comparison of the average days taken to ship an order to market benchmark for order shipping of 2.5 days (per prompt) shows that apparel e-commerce website has a higher average shipping days.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
4
]
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "Identifies that the milestone from shipped to delivered does not have room to improve compared to Market Benchmark",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "Based on criterion 12180, the average days taken to deliver an order is 3.6. The comparison of the average days taken to deliver an order to market benchmark for order shipping of 4 days (per prompt) shows that apparel e-commerce website has a lower average delivery days.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
5
]
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "Identifies that the milestone from ordered to processed does not have room to improve compared to Market Benchmark",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "Based on criterion 12178, the average days taken to process an order is 2.0. The comparison of the average days taken to process an order to market benchmark for order shipping of 2 days (per prompt) shows that apparel e-commerce website has the same average delivery days as the market benchmark.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
3
]
},
"criterion 9": {
"description": "Calculates the number of orders having processed to shipped turnaround time higher than market benchmark as 180 (Acceptable value is 180)",
"sources": "Order Details.csv",
"justification": "Criterion 12181 States that the milestone from processed to shipped has room to improve compared to Market Benchmark Using the attached datafile, create a column 'Order Shipping days' and populate it by calculating the number of days between processing date and shipping date per order using =days(Shipped_Date,Processed_Date). Then, filter orders with Order Shipping days greater than the market benchmark of 2.5. This gives 180 orders as have a shipping turnaround time higher than 2.5 days.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
6
]
},
"criterion 10": {
"description": "Calculates the percentage of orders having processed to shipped turnaround time higher than market benchmark as 71%. (Acceptable value is 71%)",
"sources": "Order Details.csv",
"justification": "Criterion 12181 States that the milestone from processed to shipped has room to improve compared to Market Benchmark Using the attached datafile, create a column 'Order Shipping days''and populate it by calculating the number of days between processing date and shipping date per order using =days(Shipped_Date,Processed_Date). Then, filter orders with Order Shipping days greater than the market benchmark of 2.5. This gives 180 orders (criterion 12333) as have a shipping turnaround time higher than 2.5 days. Total orders in the dataset are 252. As a percentage, orders that have a shipping turnaround time higher than 2.5 days are 180/252 =0.714285714 = 71.4% which is further rounded off to 71% as per prompt instruction.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
9,
6
]
},
"criterion 11": {
"description": "Recommends that the client can bring its processed to shipped performance in line with industry standard by taking one or more of the following steps: - Adjust internal shipping processes - Adjust internal handover from processing to shipping - Adjust handover to shipping providers - Update shipping providers",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Criterion 12181 States that the milestone from processed to shipped has room to improve compared to Market Benchmark A consultant would readily recommend that the client can bring its processed to shipped performance in line with industry standard by taking one or more of the following steps: - Adjust internal shipping processes - Adjust internal handover from processing to shipping - Adjust handover to shipping providers - Update shipping providers",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
6
]
}
}
|
documents/352/Order Details (1).csv
|
772
|
Consulting
|
A large consumer goods company is launching a new plant-based snack box. The Board wants to see a more structured market sizing analysis from the leadership team, as well as considerations around limitations of any analysis done. Perform this analysis for the year of 2024.
The Board wants to know the number of target attainable households in the US as a percent of total attainable households for the company in the US, to two decimal places. The Board also wants to know the TAM, SAM, and SOM, in dollars to two decimal places. From there, provide a recommendation for which states to pick based on the company’s criteria for market entry. And finally, flag one limitation of the analysis done thus-far, focusing specifically on one of the inputs to the analysis and why it may be less robust as an input.
The company sent us the attached data for 2024 population sizes along with the following pieces of data: there are 2.53 individuals per household; average revenue per user (ARPU) was $200 in 2021, the last year a sample was taken, and the team assumes 3% ARPU growth per year since; TAM is the number of target attainable households multiplied by ARPU for a given year, and the team expects 25% of the TAM to be in the SAM, and 5% of the SAM to be in the SOM.
Company facts: Alaska and Hawaii are not attainable states for the company; Their distribution centers are located in Ohio, Colorado, Utah; They have a market entry playbook which prioritizes states that have at least 4,000,000 attainable households and don't have a distribution center, but are adjacent to a state who does;
Round any intermediate calculations to two decimal places, including CAGR application.
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "Computes the number of target attainable households as a percent of total attainable households in the US to be 52.92% (acceptable range is 52.87% to 52.97%)",
"sources": "Market data.csv",
"justification": "To get to the percentage of target attainable households over attainable households, we first need to calculate the numerator and denominator. Starting with the denominator, we can take population in column B and convert it to households by dividing by 2.53 (per prompt). For example, Alabama becomes 5,157,699 / 2.53 = 2,038,616.21 households. We do this for each state. We also see that we should remove Alaska (292,542.69 households) and Hawaii (571,599.21 households). That leaves us with a denominator of 133,567,078.66 households. For the numerator, we need to take the number of households by state and apply the haircut in the form of the percentage in column C. For Alabama, 2,038,616.21 * 55% = 1,121,238.92 target households. We do this for all states, again excluding Alaska and Hawaii. All other states combined are 70,680,192.01 households. 70,680,192.01 / 133,567,078.66 = 52.92%. Range provided goes up to 52.97% because including Alaska and Hawaii would lead to an answer of 53.05%",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "Calculates the TAM to be $15,447,155,963.79 (acceptable range is $15,400,000,000.00 to $15,500,000,000.00)",
"sources": "Market data.csv",
"justification": "Solving for the TAM involves multiplying current ARPU * # target attainable households. ARPU in 2021 was $200. It has grown at 3% per year. Thus in 2022 it was $200 *(1+3%) = 206. In 2023, $206 * (1+3%) = $212.18. In 2024, $212.18 * (1+3%) = $218.55. Next to find the number of target attainable households, we need to take the number of households by state and apply the haircut in the form of the percentage in column C. For Alabama, 2,038,616.21 * 55% = 1,121,238.92 target households. We do this for all states, again excluding Alaska and Hawaii. All other states combined are 70,680,192.01 households. TAM = ARPU * # target attainable households = $218.55 * 70,680,192.01 = $15,447,155,963.79 (acceptable range is $15,400,000,000.00 to $15,500,000,000.00)",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "Determines the SAM to be $3,861,788,990.95 (acceptable range is $3,840,000,000.00 to $3,880,000,000.00)",
"sources": "",
"justification": "We are told that SAM is 25% of TAM. Thus 25% * $15,447,155,963.79 = $3,861,788,990.95 (acceptable range is $3,840,000,000.00 to $3,880,000,000.00)",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
2
]
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "Calculates the SOM to be $193,089,449.55 (acceptable range is $192,000,000.00 to $194,000,000.00)",
"sources": "",
"justification": "We are told that SOM is 5% of SAM. Thus, 5% * $3,861,788,990.95 = $193,089,449.55 (acceptable range is $192,000,000.00 to $194,000,000.00)",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
3
]
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "Recommends Pennsylvania as a state to prioritize",
"sources": "Market data.csv",
"justification": "The two criteria per the prompt are that a state must be (1) >4M attainable households and (2) bordering a state with an existing distribution center. Per assumption, the states with centers are Ohio, Colorado, Utah. Using the methodology in rubric criterion 10831, we found the number of attainable households by dividing population in column B by 2.53 to get to households. For example, Alabama becomes 5,157,699 / 2.53 = 2,038,616.21 households. We do this for each state. We also see that we should remove Alaska (292,542.69 households) and Hawaii (571,599.21 households). The states that have greater than 4M attainable households are California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas. Of these, only Michigan and Pennsylvania border a state with a current distribution center (Ohio in this case).",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
10
]
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "Recommends Michigan as a state to prioritize",
"sources": "Market data.csv",
"justification": "The two criteria per the prompt are that a state must be (1) >4M attainable households and (2) bordering a state with an existing distribution center. Per assumption, the states with centers are Ohio, Colorado, Utah. Using the methodology in rubric criterion 10831, we found the number of attainable households by dividing population in column B by 2.53 to get to households. For example, Alabama becomes 5,157,699 / 2.53 = 2,038,616.21 households. We do this for each state. We also see that we should remove Alaska (292,542.69 households) and Hawaii (571,599.21 households). The states that have greater than 4M attainable households are California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas. Of these, only Michigan and Pennsylvania border a state with a current distribution center (Ohio in this case).",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
9
]
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "Does not propose any state outside of Michigan and Pennsylvania as a state to prioritize",
"sources": "Market data.csv",
"justification": "The two criteria per the prompt are that a state must be (1) >4M attainable households and (2) bordering a state with an existing distribution center. Per assumption, the states with centers are Ohio, Colorado, Utah. Using the methodology in rubric criterion 10831, we found the number of attainable households by dividing population in column B by 2.53 to get to households. For example, Alabama becomes 5,157,699 / 2.53 = 2,038,616.21 households. We do this for each state. We also see that we should remove Alaska (292,542.69 households) and Hawaii (571,599.21 households). The states that have greater than 4M attainable households are California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas. Of these, only Michigan and Pennsylvania border a state with a current distribution center (Ohio in this case).",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
5,
6
]
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "Provides one of the following as reason that the analysis done thus-far may have flaws: (1) Using a nationwide assumption of 2.53 people per household makes statewide data less trustworthy (2) Using an assumption to bring ARPU to 2024 values may bias the analysis (3) blanket 25% SAM as % of TAM should be more granular (4) blanket 5% SOM as % of SAM should be more granular",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Provides one of the following as reason that the analysis done thus-far may have flaws: (1) # households is based on nationwide assumption of 2.53 people per household, which likely should be more granular to account for variation by geography, and demographics (e.g., younger vs older households) (2) ARPU value of $200 is from 2021 and then forecasted under assumption of 3% since; a more accurate input given how sensitive TAM, SAM, and SOM are to that input is to get actual updated information for 2024 rather than relying on a forecasted assumption (3) blanket 25% SAM as % of TAM and 5% SOM as % of SAM should be more granular",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 9": {
"description": "Mentions that Michigan is adjacent to Ohio",
"sources": "",
"justification": "The two criteria per the prompt are that a state must be (1) >4M attainable households and (2) bordering a state with an existing distribution center. Per assumption, the states with centers are Ohio, Colorado, Utah. Michigan and Pennsylvania share a border with Ohio",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 10": {
"description": "Mentions that Pennsylvania is adjacent to Ohio",
"sources": "",
"justification": "The two criteria per the prompt are that a state must be (1) >4M attainable households and (2) bordering a state with an existing distribution center. Per assumption, the states with centers are Ohio, Colorado, Utah. Michigan and Pennsylvania share a border with Ohio",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
}
}
|
documents/772/Market data (1).csv
|
804
|
Consulting
|
My client, Paw Prints, is a B2B manufacturer of digital pet portraits that is looking for an assessment of its productivity after transitioning 25% of its production team to offshore resources in week 8 of the enclosed data set and running its operations with 50% of its production team offshore in weeks 9 and 10. Could you calculate the Average Handling Time (AHT) of its operation during weeks 6 and 7 combined as well as weeks 9 and 10 combined, assuming AHT is the simple ratio of total hours worked over the entire period in question to total quantity approved over the entire period in question? Could you then provide the percentage change in AHT for weeks 6 and 7 combined when compared with weeks 9 and 10 combined? Similarly, what is the percentage change in AHT for weeks 6 and 7 combined when compared with week 8? Please summarize your findings in a draft memo to the Paw Prints management team, and include at least one hypothesis as to why the AHTs changed as they did when more offshore workers were introduced. Please include underlying calculations, round AHT output to two decimal places and round percentages to one decimal place.
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "Calculates combined AHT in weeks 6 and 7 as 3.23 (acceptable value is 3.23)",
"sources": "Mercury 4.csv",
"justification": "Average AHT = Total hours / Total approved quantity Week 6 Total hours = SUM(B:B) = 71,259.02 Total approved quantity = SUM(C:C) = 22,263.00 Week 7 Total hours = SUM(D:D) = 71,211.98 Total approved quantity = SUM(E:E) = 21,889.00 Average AHT = (71,259.02 + 71,211.98) / (22,263.00 + 21,889.00) = 142,471.00 / 44,152.00 = 3.227 = 3.23 (rounded to two decimal places per prompt requirement)",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "Calculates AHT in week 8 as 3.91 (acceptable value is 3.91)",
"sources": "Mercury 4.csv",
"justification": "Average AHT = Total hours / Total approved quantity Week 8 Total hours = SUM(F:F) = 67,254.23 Total approved quantity = SUM(G:G) = 17,204.00 Average AHT = 67,254.23 / 17,204.00 = 3.909 = 3.91 (rounded to two decimal places per prompt requirement)",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "Calculates combined AHT in weeks 9 and 10 as 4.49 (acceptable value is 4.49)",
"sources": "Mercury 4.csv",
"justification": "Average AHT = Total hours / Total approved quantity Week 9 Total hours = SUM(H:H) = 56,195.89 Total approved quantity = SUM(I:I) = 12,507.00 Week 10 Total hours = SUM(J:J) = 56,133.90 Total approved quantity = SUM(K:K) = 12,534.00 Average AHT = (56,195.89 + 56,133.90) / (12,507.00 + 12,534.00) = 112,329.79 / 25,041.00 = 4.486 = 4.49 (rounded to two decimal places per prompt requirement)",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "Calculates the percent difference between combined AHT in weeks 6 + 7 vs week 8 as 21.1% (acceptable range is 20.9% to 21.3%)",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Based on criterion 4621 and 7413, the average AHT in weeks 6 and 7 and that for week 8 are 3.23 and 3.91, respectively. Percent difference = (3.91 / 3.23) - 1 = 21.05% = 21.1% (rounded to one decimal place per prompt requirement)",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1,
2
]
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "Calculates the percent difference between combined AHT in weeks 6 + 7 vs combined AHT in weeks 9 + 10 as 39.0% (acceptable range is 38.8% to 39.2%)",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Based on criterion 4621 and 5113, the average AHT in weeks 6 and 7 and that for weeks 9 and 10 are 3.23 and 4.49, respectively. Percent difference = (4.49 / 3.23) - 1 = 39.01% = 39.0% (rounded to one decimal place per prompt requirement)",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1,
3
]
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "Writes a memo to Paw Prints management",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Prompt states 'Please summarize your findings in a draft memo to the Paw Prints management team'",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Style"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "States one of the following hypotheses as to why the AHTs changed as they did when more offshore workers were introduced: - Learning curve period required by the new workers - Lower domain familiarity of the new workers - Higher rates of rework for new workers - Asynchronous collaboration delays - Difference in work objectives between the onshore and offshore workers",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Required by prompt Criteria 2163 Calculates the percent difference between average AHT in weeks 6 + 7 and in week 8 as 21.1% Criteria 3126 Calculates the percent difference between average AHT in weeks 6 + 7 and in weeks 9 + 10 as 39.0% The average AHT increased as the penetration of offshore workers increased A consultant would readily state one of the following hypotheses as to why the AHTs changed as they did when more offshore workers were introduced: - Learning curve period required by the new workers - Lower domain familiarity of the new workers - Higher rates of rework for new workers - Asynchronous collaboration delays - Difference in work objectives between the onshore and offshore workers",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
4,
5
]
}
}
|
documents/804/Paw Prints 1.csv
|
828
|
Consulting
|
I'm working to optimize the distribution of marketing spend for my client for the next cycle to better fit their Family Man target group. They want to focus on campaigns that they have experience with, meaning only Partner + Category combos that they’ve done more than 2 campaigns with, previously. Among those, disregard campaigns where Family Man is not in top 2 in the attached dataset. The ones left are our campaigns of interest for this analysis. First off, what is the total campaign cost and total impressions of the campaigns of interest?
Next, assume for SoMe and Online campaigns, that if only target group 1 is marked, then that group gets 90% of impressions. If 1 & 2 are marked, then group 1 gets 70% and group 2 gets 30%. If all three are marked, then group 1 gets 60%, group 2 gets 25%, and group 3 gets 15%. Assume for TV campaigns, that if only target group 1 is marked, then that group gets 75% of impressions. If 1 & 2 are marked, then group 1 gets 65% and group 2 gets 25%. If all three are marked, then group 1 gets 60%, group 2 gets 20%, and group 3 gets 10%. How many Family Man impressions does that yield in campaigns of interest and does Family Man get more impressions than Single Man in the campaigns of interest? What is ultimately the number of Family Man impressions per $ in campaigns of interest?
Please list at least one downside that I can share with my client about using campaign channels with less control on ultimate recipient (multiple groups are exposed to the campaign). Please include all underlying calculations, report two decimal points for Family Man Impressions per $ and for the rest, report with zero decimals. Please note that Payment ($) is equivalent to the unit price associated with the payment method of the specific campaign.
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "Calculates the total campaign costs for campaigns of interest as $1,591,118. (Acceptable value is $1,591,118)",
"sources": "Target_Group.csv",
"justification": "Using the dataset 'Target_Group.csv', filter for campaigns with more than 2 campaigns with the same Category (Col. C) + Partners (Col. D) combo. Then filter for campaigns with Family Man in either Target_Group_1 (Col. F) or in Target_Group_2 (Col. G). Then calculate the cost for each campaign. Use the following formulas to calculate each campaign cost depending on the payment method (Col. I): 1) Campaign Cost for Fixed Price = [Payment ($) (Col. J)] 2) Campaign Cost for Pay Per Impressions = [Total_Impressions (Col. K)] * [Payment ($) (Col. J)] 3) Campaign Cost for Pay Per Click = [Payment ($) (Col. J)] * [Total_Clicks (Col. L)] Sum all the campaign costs, yielding a total cost of $1,591,117.8, rounded to $1,591,118 (as requested in the prompt).",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "Identifies the total impressions for campaigns of interest as 11,409,299. (Acceptable value is 11,409,299)",
"sources": "Target_Group.csv",
"justification": "Using the dataset 'Target_Group.csv', filter for campaigns with more than 2 campaigns with the same Category (Col. C) + Partners (Col. D) combo. Then filter for campaigns with Family Man in either Target_Group_1 (Col. F) or in Target_Group_2 (Col. G). Sum the Total_Impressions (Col. K) across all the campaigns, yielding a total number of impressions of 11,409,299.0, rounded to 11,409,299 (as requested in the prompt).",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "Calculates the total Family Man impressions for campaigns of interest as 5,505,900. (Acceptable range is 5,503,900 to 5,508,900)",
"sources": "Target_Group.csv",
"justification": "Using the dataset 'Target_Group.csv', filter for campaigns with more than 2 campaigns with the same Category (Col. C) + Partners (Col. D) combo. Then filter for campaigns with Family Man in either Target_Group_1 (Col. F) or in Target_Group_2 (Col. G). Then calculate the Family Man Impressions given the segmentation of impressions as instructed in the prompt. Sum the total Family Man impressions, yielding a result of 5,505,899.5, rounded to 5,505,900 (as requested in the prompt).",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "Calculates the total Single Man impressions for campaigns of interest as 2,396,393. (Acceptable range is 2,296,393 to 2,596,393)",
"sources": "Target_Group.csv",
"justification": "Using the dataset 'Target_Group.csv', filter for campaigns with more than 2 campaigns with the same Category (Col. C) + Partners (Col. D) combo. Then filter for campaigns with Family Man in either Target_Group_1 (Col. F) or in Target_Group_2 (Col. G). Then calculate the Single Man Impressions given the segmentation of impressions as instructed in the prompt. Sum the total Single Man impressions, yielding a result of 2,396,393.3, rounded to 2,396,393 (as requested in the prompt).",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "States that Family Man gets more impressions than Single Man in campaigns of interest",
"sources": "",
"justification": "As noted in criterion 12740, the total Family Man impressions is 5,505,900 given the filters for experienced campaigns with Family Man in top 2 groups and the impression segmentation. As noted in criterion 12741, the total Single Man impressions is 2,396,393 given the filters for experienced campaigns with Family Man in top 2 groups and the impression segmentation. Family Man thus gets more impressions than Single Man.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
3,
4
]
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "State the number of Family Man impressions per $ for campaigns of interest as 3.46. (Acceptable range is 3.44 to 3.48)",
"sources": "",
"justification": "As noted in criterion 12738, the total campaign costs $1,591,118 given the filters for experienced campaigns with Family Man in top 2 groups. As noted in criterion 12740, the total Family Man impressions is 5,505,900 given the filters for experienced campaigns with Family Man in top 2 groups and the impression segmentation. The number of Family Man impressions per $ is thus = [Family Man Impressions (criterion 12740) ] / [Total Campaign Costs (criterion 12738)] = 5,505,900 / 1,591,118 = 3.4604, rounded to 3.46 (as requested in the prompt)",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1,
3
]
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "States at least one of the following downsides when using campaign channels with less control on ultimate recipient: - When a message will be received by multiple groups, it poses a risk of being received in a non-intended way by certain recipients. - Some of the campaign spend will go towards non-important impressions / clicks. - The brand may be impacted by a diluted message. - The brand may be impacted by non-target groups engaging with the brand. - Performance measurements may be inflated or diluted if not accounted for. -Lower financial efficiency",
"sources": "",
"justification": "As per prompt, the model must provide downsides when using campaign channels with less control on ultimate recipient. State at least one of the following downsides: - When a message will be received by multiple groups, it poses a risk of being received in a non-intended way by certain recipients. It is important to be aware of who ultimately will be exposed to the campaign. Any message must be broad enough to encompass the multiple recipients without bringing non-intended (e.g., negative) feedback. - The brand may be impacted by a diluted message. In extension to above, a more encompassing message may dilute the message to the target group of interest. - Some of the campaign spend will go towards non-important impressions / clicks. For price per impression and per click, some of the campaign cost will be wasted on non-target groups. For fixed price campaigns, the cost may be set by the full expected impressions and not only the relevant ones. - The brand may be impacted by non-target groups engaging with the brand. If other groups start engaging with the brand, the primary target group may change brand sentiment. - Performance measurements may be inflated or diluted if not accounted for. When conducting marketing campaigns with multiple groups, the reported impressions, clicks and other KPIs may be inflated or diluted if it is not possible to segment the statistics appropriately.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
}
}
|
documents/828/Target_Group (1).csv
|
1,080
|
Consulting
|
A US-based private medical practice business would like to understand the financial performance of the 'Offices of Physicians' industry. The attached dataset contains a summary of aggregated tax return information across a sample of ‘Offices of Physicians' businesses across the US, with the number of firms included in the sample for each year found in row 3. Assume that ‘business receipts’ refers to revenue and ‘net income’ refers to earnings before tax.
First, the company wants to know what were the 3 fastest growing Income Statement items for the average firm in the sample between 2014 and 2022 as measured by CAGR, and what were each of their CAGRs, as a percentage to two decimal places
Next, the client is concerned about its Cost of Goods sold, and would like to explore developing an analytics platform that forecasts Cost of Goods Sold based on revenue. However, the client would only like to invest in building this platform if it believes that it can achieve strong forecast accuracy. Specifically, the client believes that if the correlation between the average firm's Cost of Goods Sold and the average firm's revenue is at least 0.90, then it can achieve strong forecast accuracy for its pool of offices. Calculate the correlation between the average firm's Cost of Goods Sold and the average firm's Revenue between 2014 and 2022, as a percentage to two decimal places. Should the client invest in developing this analytics platform?
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "States that the CAGR for Bad Debts was 16.58%. (Acceptable range is 16.08% to 17.08%).",
"sources": "physicianFin.csv",
"justification": "To calculate, duplicate the dataset in a separate tab, and divide every row below 35 (income statement rows) by the value on the third row (number of firms, as per the prompt). Then calculate CAGRs for every row, and identify the largest values. 'Bad Debts' Expense is at top of the list, and the calculation is as follows: Bad debt expense for the average firm = 'Bad debts' / 'Number of returns'. Per 'physicianFin.csv', In 2014: Bad debts = $565,433.000K Number of returns = 156,673.000 Therefore bad debt expense for the average firm in 2014 = $565,433.000K / 156,673.000 = $3.609K. In 2022: Bad debts = $1,967,869.000K Number of returns = 159,766.000 Therefore bad debt expense for the average firm in 2022 = $1,967,869.000K / 159,766.000 = $12.317K. CAGR 2014-2022 = ( 2022 value / 2014 value ) ^ (1/8) - 1 CAGR = ( $12.317K / $3.609K ) ^ (1/8) - 1 = 16.584%, rounded to 16.58% per prompt instructions (Acceptable range is 16.08% to 17.08%).",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
2
]
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "Identifies Bad Debts as one of the three fastest growing income statement items.",
"sources": "physicianFin.csv",
"justification": "To calculate, duplicate the dataset in a separate tab, and divide every row below 35 (income statement rows) by the value on the third row (number of firms, as per the prompt). Then calculate CAGRs for every row, and identify the largest values. 'Bad Debts' Expense is the top item. Calculating 2014-2022 CAGR for the average firm across all line items from rows 36-72 in physiciansFin.csv shows that 16.58% for Bad Debts is the highest value.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "States that the CAGR for Cost of Goods Sold was 15.58%. (Acceptable range is 15.08% to 16.08%).",
"sources": "physicianFin.csv",
"justification": "To calculate, duplicate the dataset in a separate tab, and divide every row below 35 (income statement rows) by the value on the third row (number of firms, as per the prompt). Then calculate CAGRs for every row, and identify the largest values. 'Cost of Goods Sold' is the top two item of the list, and the calculation is as follows: Cost of Goods Sold for the average firm = 'Cost of Goods Sold' / 'Number of returns'. Per 'physicianFin.csv', In 2014: Cost of Goods Sold = $13,293,877.000K Number of returns = 156,673.000 Therefore Cost of Goods Sold for the average firm in 2014 = $13,293,877.000K / 156,673.000 = $84.851K. In 2022: Cost of Goods Sold = $43,166,725.000K Number of returns = 159,766.000 Therefore Cost of Goods Sold for the average firm in 2022 = $43,166,725.000K / 159,766.000 = $270.187K. CAGR 2014-2022 = ( 2022 value / 2014 value ) ^ (1/8) - 1 CAGR = ( $270.187K / $84.851K ) ^ (1/8) - 1 = 15.578%, rounded to 15.58% per prompt instructions (Acceptable range is 15.08% to 16.08%).",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
4
]
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "Identifies Cost of Goods Sold as one of the three fastest growing income statement items.",
"sources": "physicianFin.csv",
"justification": "To calculate, duplicate the dataset in a separate tab, and divide every row below 35 (income statement rows) by the value on the third row (number of firms, as per the prompt). Then calculate CAGRs for every row, and identify the largest values. 'Cost of Goods Sold' is the second item. Calculating 2014-2022 CAGR for the average firm across all line items from rows 36-72 in physiciansFin.csv shows that 15.578% for Cost of Goods Sold is the second highest value.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "States that the CAGR for Amortization was 11.59%. (Acceptable range is 11.09% to 12.09%).",
"sources": "physicianFin.csv",
"justification": "To calculate, duplicate the dataset in a separate tab, and divide every row below 35 (income statement rows) by the value on the third row (number of firms, as per the prompt). Then calculate CAGRs for every row, and identify the largest values. 'Amortization' Expense is the top 3 item of the list, and the calculation is as follows: Amortization for the average firm = 'Amortization' / 'Number of returns'. Per 'physicianFin.csv', In 2014: Amortization = $413,174.000K Number of returns = 156,673.000 Therefore amortization for the average firm in 2014 = $413,174.000K / 156,673.000 = $2.637K. In 2022: Amortization = $1,013,385.000K Number of returns = 159,766.000 = Therefore amortization for the average firm in 2022 = $6.343K. CAGR 2014-2022 = ( 2022 value / 2014 value ) ^ (1/8) - 1 CAGR = ( $6.343K / $2.637K ) ^ (1/8) - 1 = 11.595%",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
6
]
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "Identifies Amortization as one of the three fastest growing income statement items.",
"sources": "physicianFin.csv",
"justification": "To calculate, duplicate the dataset in a separate tab, and divide every row below 35 (income statement rows) by the value on the third row (number of firms, as per the prompt). Then calculate CAGRs for every row, and identify the largest values. 'Amortization' is the third item. Calculating 2014-2022 CAGR for the average firm across all line items from rows 36-72 in physiciansFin.csv shows that 11.595% for Amortization is the third highest value.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "States that the correlation between revenue and cost of goods sold is 88.69% (Acceptable range is 88.19% to 89.19%)",
"sources": "physicianFin.csv",
"justification": "From physicianFin.csv, for [ 2022, 2021, \u2026 , 2014 ]: Total Business Receipts: [ 358,940,891, 344,384,054, 325,960,429, 307,343,000, 304,399,397, 310,835,500, 295,396,132, 275,772,594, 259,604,803 ] Note: business receipts = revenue, per the assumption in prompt. Total Cost of Goods Sold: [ 43,166,725, 30,119,954, 33,114,328, 25,155,677, 28,301,126, 20,539,350, 18,877,589, 14,755,084, 13,293,877 ] Total Returns: [ 159,766, 154,387, 153,568, 151,799, 158,174, 154,464, 151,830, 157,107, 156,673 ] We can calculate Business Receipts and Cost of Goods Sold, for the average firm by dividing the total values, by Total Returns. Therefore, Business Receipts for the average firm: [ 2,246.666, 2,230.654, 2,122.580, 2,024.671, 1,924.459, 2,012.349, 1,945.572, 1,755.317, 1,656.985 ] Cost of Goods Sold for the average firm: [ 270.187, 195.094, 215.633, 165.717, 178.924, 132.972, 124.334, 93.917, 84.851 ] =CORREL( [ 2,246.666, 2,230.654, 2,122.580, 2,024.671, 1,924.459, 2,012.349, 1,945.572, 1,755.317, 1,656.985 ], [ 270.187, 195.094, 215.633, 165.717, 178.924, 132.972, 124.334, 93.917, 84.851 ] ) = 88.69% Expressed as a percentage rounded to two decimal places as per the prompt's instructions, and with a +/- 0.5 percentage point acceptable range.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "States that the client should not pursue the development of the analytics platform.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "The correlation between Cost of Goods Sold and revenue, for the average firm was 88.69% Since this < the client's investment threshold of 90%, the client should not invest in building the platform.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
7
]
},
"criterion 9": {
"description": "Explains that the the fastest growing categories on the income statement are on the expense side generally rather than the income side",
"sources": "",
"justification": "This explanation is not specifically asked for in the prompt, but it is notable that the fastest growing categories are all bucketed as expenses rather than various forms of income",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
}
}
|
documents/1080/physicianFin.csv
|
1,091
|
Consulting
|
The Company operates in the Aerospace industry with focus on 4 categories: propulsion, materials, mechanics, and controls, the last of which has been identified as a weak spot. The company is now evaluating the prospect for inorganic growth. There are roughly 1,000 early-stage startups that the M&A team has identified as potential targets in the attached data, determine how many startups meet all of the following criteria: current gross profit >=$2,000,000, gross margin of at least 30%, operate in one of the categories in which The Company focuses. Out of this subset, determine the two largest startups by gross profit, state their names and respective gross profit in dollars to rounded to the nearest cent. Finally recommend which of these two largest startups should the company prioritize as an acquisition target.
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "Calculates the number of startups that meet the required criteria to be 198 (acceptable range is 197-199)",
"sources": "Targets.csv",
"justification": "The three criteria that must be met are: current gross profit >=$2,000,000, gross profit margin of at least 30%, and operate within a category in the company's existing portfolio. Starting with gross profit, we can solve for gross profit by taking revenue in column C and subtracting COGS in column D for each row. For example, AstraForge in row 2 would be 18,170,392 - 8,685,972 = 9,484,420. Do this for each row. Next, gross profit margin is equal to (revenue - COGS) / revenue. Again using column 2 as an example, gross margin would be (18,170,392 - 8,685,972) / 18,170,392 = 52.197%. Finally, we need to filter out the 4 categories listed in prompt as an existing competency of the company (propulsion, materials, mechanics, and controls) from the technology column. Count the number of rows where gross profit is greater than or equal to $2,000,000, gross margin is greater than or equal to 30%, and technology is one of the 4 categories listed above. This will return a count of 199 (rounded per prompt).",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "Determines that ApexLift is one of the two largest start-ups by gross profit that meet the criteria.",
"sources": "Targets.csv",
"justification": "The three criteria that must be met are: current gross profit >=$2,000,000, gross profit margin of at least 30%, and operate within a category in the company's existing portfolio. Starting with gross profit, we can solve for gross profit by taking revenue in column C and subtracting COGS in column D for each row. Next, gross profit is equal to revenue - COGS, in columns C and D respectively. Finally, we need to filter out the 4 categories listed in prompt as an existing competency of the company (propulsion, materials, mechanics, and controls) from the technology column. Sorting from maximum to minimum, the company with the largest gross profit is ApexLift, with a gross profit of $24,709,711 - $2,357,346 = $22,352,365.00 (rounded per prompt)",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "Computes the gross profit of ApexLift to be $22,352,365.00 (acceptable value is $22,352,365.00)",
"sources": "Targets.csv",
"justification": "The three criteria that must be met are: current gross profit >=$2,000,000, gross profit margin of at least 30%, and operate within a category in the company's existing portfolio. Starting with gross profit, we can solve for gross profit by taking revenue in column C and subtracting COGS in column D for each row. Next, gross profit is equal to revenue - COGS, in columns C and D respectively. Finally, we need to filter out the 4 categories listed in prompt as an existing competency of the company (propulsion, materials, mechanics, and controls) from the technology column. Sorting from maximum to minimum, the company with the largest gross profit is ApexLift, with a gross profit of $24,709,711 - $2,357,346 = $22,352,365.00 Rounded to 2 decimal places per prompt.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
2
]
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "Determines that IonVector is one of the two largest start-ups by gross profit that meet the criteria.",
"sources": "Targets.csv",
"justification": "The three criteria that must be met are: current gross profit >=$2,000,000, gross profit margin of at least 30%, and operate within a category in the company's existing portfolio. Starting with gross profit, we can solve for gross profit by taking revenue in column C and subtracting COGS in column D for each row. Next, gross profit is equal to revenue - COGS, in columns C and D respectively. Finally, we need to filter out the 4 categories listed in prompt as an existing competency of the company (propulsion, materials, mechanics, and controls) from the technology column. Sorting from maximum to minimum, the company with the second largest gross profit is IonVector. The gross profit for IonVector = $24,753,583 - $4,199,709 = $20,553,874.00 (rounded per prompt)",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "Computes the gross profit of IonVector to be $20,553,874.00 (acceptable value is $20,553,874.00)",
"sources": "Targets.csv",
"justification": "The three criteria that must be met are: current gross profit >=$2,000,000, gross profit margin of at least 30%, and operate within a category in the company's existing portfolio. Starting with gross profit, we can solve for gross profit by taking revenue in column C and subtracting COGS in column D for each row. Next, gross profit is equal to revenue - COGS, in columns C and D respectively. Finally, we need to filter out the 4 categories listed in prompt as an existing competency of the company (propulsion, materials, mechanics, and controls) from the technology column. Sorting from maximum to minimum, the company with the second largest gross profit is IonVector. The gross profit for IonVector = $24,753,583 - $4,199,709 = $20,553,874.00 (rounded to 2 decimal places per prompt)",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
4
]
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "Recommends that IonVector should be considered the top acquisition target",
"sources": "Targets.csv",
"justification": "We are told in the prompt that the company wants to prioritize addressing the deficiency in the controls vector. Of the two being considered, IonVector and ApexLift, only IonVector is in the controls sector (Technology from Target.csv column B)",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
2,
4
]
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "Rationale for recommendation includes reference to the company's stated priority being addressing a deficiency in controls",
"sources": "",
"justification": "The answer for which startup to recommend must include explicit reference that the company wants to prioritize addressing the deficiency in the controls vector. Of the two being considered, IonVector and ApexLift, only IonVector is in the controls sector.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
}
}
|
documents/1091/Targets.csv
|
1,122
|
Consulting
|
The client is a fast-casual Mexican-style restaurant chain. They have collected detailed customer feedback across demographics, menu items, perceptions, likelihood to recommend, and overall satisfaction. Based on the attached data sample, the client wants to develop data-driven insights, particularly to better understand what drives customer loyalty and advocacy measured by the Net Promoter Score (NPS). First, report the NPS for Gen Z, for Boomers, and also for millennials. Then, identify the region with the highest NPS. Could you also help me by naming one way to improve NPS in general please. Write the answers as a memo so that it can be directly delivered to the client.
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "Calculates NPS for Gen Z as -28 (acceptable range is - 29 to - 27).",
"sources": "Survey.csv",
"justification": "To calculate NPS for Gen Z: - Sort customers by Generation to identify 485 Gen Z customers - Sort Gen Z customers by Willingness to Recommend to identify: 248 detractors (Willingness to Recommend = 0 to 6) and 113 promoters (Willingness to Recommend = 9 or 10) Promoters = 23% of total (113/485) Detractors = 51% of total (248/485) NPS calculation: 23 - 51 = - 28 (rounded to nearest whole number)",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
5
]
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "Calculates NPS for Boomers as -28 (acceptable range is - 29 to - 27).",
"sources": "Survey.csv",
"justification": "To calculate NPS for boomers: - Sort customers by Generation to identify 520 Boomer customers - Sort Boomer customers by Willingness to Recommend to identify: 123 promoters (Willingness to Recommend = 9 or 10); and 267 detractors (Willingness to Recommend = 0 to 6). Promoters = 23.7% of total (123/520) Detractors = 51.3% of total (267/520) NPS calculation: 23.7 - 51.3 = - 28 (rounded to nearest whole number)",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "States that the region Northeast has the highest NPS.",
"sources": "Survey.csv",
"justification": "By grouping all customers by region, and then by Willingness to Recommend, the following table shows customer counts in each group, % of promoters and detractors and the calculation of NPS: Willingness to Recommend ** Midwest ** Northeast **South ** West 3-4 110 132 168 130 5-6 99 125 136 116 7-8 101 119 150 124 9-10 85 129 141 120 Grand Total 395 505 595 490 Promoters 22% 26% 24% 24% Detractors 53% 51% 51% 50% NPS -31 -25 -27 -26 NPS in the Northeast region is the highest = - 25 (rounded to nearest whole number)",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "Provides at least one actionable strategy to improve NPS: -Fix customer pain points -Train staff to delight -Improve dining experiences",
"sources": "",
"justification": "A consultant would recognize some of the following potential strategies to improve NPS: -Fix customer pain points; this would improve customer experience and potentially NPS -Train staff to delight; allow servers to fix minor issues on the spot (free drinks, small discounts etc) without managerial approval. -Improve dining experiences; this would potentially improve NPS and customers leave happier",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "States there are 113 promoters for Gen Z (acceptable value is 113)",
"sources": "Survey.csv",
"justification": "To calculate number of promoters for Gen Z: - Sort customers by Generation to identify 485 Gen Z customers - Sort Gen Z customers by Willingness to Recommend to identify: 113 promoters (Willingness to Recommend = 9 or 10);",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "Calculates NPS for Millennials as -22 (acceptable range is - 23 to - 21).",
"sources": "Survey.csv",
"justification": "To calculate NPS for millennials: - Sort customers by Generation to identify 465 millennial customers - Sort millennial customers by Willingness to Recommend to identify: 117 promoters (Willingness to Recommend = 9 or 10); and 217 detractors (Willingness to Recommend = 0 to 6). Promoters = 25.2% of total (117/465) Detractors = 46.7 % of total (217/465) NPS calculation: 25.2 - 46.7 = - 22 (rounded to nearest whole number)",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "Presents the answers as a memo.",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "The prompt had explicitly asked for this to be presented as a memo so that it can be directly delivered to the client.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Style"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
}
}
|
documents/1122/Survey.csv
|
1,150
|
Consulting
|
Our client, a multi-specialty retailer called BudgetBuy, wants to launch a new promotional campaign focused on only one product category, with the intention of choosing the category that will allow them to maximize the discount on their products while minimizing the impact on their profit margins. Using the enclosed summary of last year’s sales data alongside the proposed discount rates for the new promotional campaign, could you recommend the best category for the new promotion? Please provide a score for each category and select the category with the lowest score, which should be calculated for each category as the percentage reduction in profits under the campaign minus 10 times the percentage reduction in revenues under the campaign. Compute all profit and revenue values at the row level first, then aggregate by category. Report scores rounded to two decimal places.”
Assuming sales volumes increase by 5% over last year’s data, while all prices, costs, and discounts remain the same, what would be the expected reduction in BudgetBuy's profit for the recommended category if they launch this campaign compared to if they didn’t? Please also advise the client in a memo on why the promotional campaign might bolster the sales of all categories, including those that are not selected for the discount?
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "States that the total score for the Clothing product category is 4.78 (acceptable range is 4.76 to 4.80).",
"sources": "General_sales_data.csv",
"justification": "To calculate the impact on profits, impact on revenues, and corresponding scores, we first need to calculate the profits and revenues with discount, and without discount. To do so, we need to add 4 columns: - Profits (Post-Discount): [Unit_Price x (1-Discount) - Unit_Cost] x Quantity_Sold - Profits (Pre-Discount): [Unit_Price - Unit_Cost] x Quantity_Sold - Revenue (Post-discount): Unit_Price x (1-Discount) x Quantity_Sold - Revenue (Pre-discount): Unit_Price x Quantity_Sold Once we have these new fields, we can summarize revenues and profits using a pivot table using the following: - Rows: Product_Category - Values: Sum of Profits (Post-Discount), sum of Profits (Pre-Discount), sum of Total Revenue (Post-discount), and sum of Total Revenue (Pre-discount) This gives us the following values: Row Labels Profits (Post-Discount) Profits (Pre-Discount) Revenue (Post-discount) Revenue (Pre-discount) Clothing $981,485 $1,712,958 $18,555,262 $19,286,734 Electronics $969,866 $1,574,320 $16,966,587 $17,571,041 Food $837,718 $1,421,108 $14,558,496 $15,141,886 Furniture $1,037,835 $1,779,461 $17,588,655 $18,330,281 Once we have this, we can calculate the % decrease in profits and % decrease in revenue as follows: - Decrease in Profits: [Profits (Pre-Discount) - Profits (Post-Discount)] / Profits (Pre-Discount) - Decrease in Revenue: [Revenue (Pre-Discount) - Revenue (Post-Discount)] / Revenue (Pre-Discount) Lastly, the score can be calculated as = 'Decrease in Profits' - 10 x 'Decrease in Revenue' x 100% The impact on profits, impact on revenues, and corresponding scores for each category can then be calculated as follows: Category Decrease in Profits Decrease in Revenue Score Clothing 42.70% 3.79% = 42.70 - 3.79 x 10 = 42.70 - 37.92 = 4.776 = 4.78 \u00a0 Electronics 38.39% 3.44% = 38.39 - 3.44 x 10 = 38.39 - 34.40 = 3.994 = 3.99 \u00a0 Food 41.05% 3.85% = 41.05 - 3.85 x 10 = 41.05 - 38.53 = 2.524 = 2.52 \u00a0 Furniture 41.68% 4.05% = 41.68 - 4.05 x 10 = 41.68 - 40.46 = 1.218 = 1.22 Please note, provided scores deviate from stated formulas given that unrounded inputs were used. Reported scores are to be rounded to 2 decimal places per prompt.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "States that the total score for the Electronics product category is 3.99 (acceptable range is 3.97 to 4.01).",
"sources": "General_sales_data.csv",
"justification": "To calculate the impact on profits, impact on revenues, and corresponding scores, we first need to calculate the profits and revenues with discount, and without discount. To do so, we need to add 4 columns: - Profits (Post-Discount): [Unit_Price x (1-Discount) - Unit_Cost] x Quantity_Sold - Profits (Pre-Discount): [Unit_Price - Unit_Cost] x Quantity_Sold - Revenue (Post-discount): Unit_Price x (1-Discount) x Quantity_Sold - Revenue (Pre-discount): Unit_Price x Quantity_Sold Once we have these new fields, we can summarize revenues and profits using a pivot table using the following: - Rows: Product_Category - Values: Sum of Profits (Post-Discount), sum of Profits (Pre-Discount), sum of Total Revenue (Post-discount), and sum of Total Revenue (Pre-discount) This gives us the following values: Row Labels Profits (Post-Discount) Profits (Pre-Discount) Revenue (Post-discount) Revenue (Pre-discount) Clothing $981,485 $1,712,958 $18,555,262 $19,286,734 Electronics $969,866 $1,574,320 $16,966,587 $17,571,041 Food $837,718 $1,421,108 $14,558,496 $15,141,886 Furniture $1,037,835 $1,779,461 $17,588,655 $18,330,281 Once we have this, we can calculate the % decrease in profits and % decrease in revenue as follows: - Decrease in Profits: [Profits (Pre-Discount) - Profits (Post-Discount)] / Profits (Pre-Discount) - Decrease in Revenue: [Revenue (Pre-Discount) - Revenue (Post-Discount)] / Revenue (Pre-Discount) Lastly, the score can be calculated as = 'Decrease in Profits' - 10 x 'Decrease in Revenue' x 100% The impact on profits, impact on revenues, and corresponding scores for each category can then be calculated as follows: Category Decrease in Profits Decrease in Revenue Score Clothing 42.70% 3.79% = 42.70 - 3.79 x 10 = 42.70 - 37.92 = 4.776 = 4.78 \u00a0 Electronics 38.39% 3.44% = 38.39 - 3.44 x 10 = 38.39 - 34.40 = 3.994 = 3.99 \u00a0 Food 41.05% 3.85% = 41.05 - 3.85 x 10 = 41.05 - 38.53 = 2.524 = 2.52 \u00a0 Furniture 41.68% 4.05% = 41.68 - 4.05 x 10 = 41.68 - 40.46 = 1.218 = 1.22 Please note, provided scores deviate from stated formulas given that unrounded inputs were used. Reported scores are to be rounded to 2 decimal places per prompt.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "States that the total score for the Food product category is 2.52 (acceptable range is 2.50 to 2.54).",
"sources": "General_sales_data.csv",
"justification": "To calculate the impact on profits, impact on revenues, and corresponding scores, we first need to calculate the profits and revenues with discount, and without discount. To do so, we need to add 4 columns: - Profits (Post-Discount): [Unit_Price x (1-Discount) - Unit_Cost] x Quantity_Sold - Profits (Pre-Discount): [Unit_Price - Unit_Cost] x Quantity_Sold - Revenue (Post-discount): Unit_Price x (1-Discount) x Quantity_Sold - Revenue (Pre-discount): Unit_Price x Quantity_Sold Once we have these new fields, we can summarize revenues and profits using a pivot table using the following: - Rows: Product_Category - Values: Sum of Profits (Post-Discount), sum of Profits (Pre-Discount), sum of Total Revenue (Post-discount), and sum of Total Revenue (Pre-discount) This gives us the following values: Row Labels Profits (Post-Discount) Profits (Pre-Discount) Revenue (Post-discount) Revenue (Pre-discount) Clothing $981,485 $1,712,958 $18,555,262 $19,286,734 Electronics $969,866 $1,574,320 $16,966,587 $17,571,041 Food $837,718 $1,421,108 $14,558,496 $15,141,886 Furniture $1,037,835 $1,779,461 $17,588,655 $18,330,281 Once we have this, we can calculate the % decrease in profits and % decrease in revenue as follows: - Decrease in Profits: [Profits (Pre-Discount) - Profits (Post-Discount)] / Profits (Pre-Discount) - Decrease in Revenue: [Revenue (Pre-Discount) - Revenue (Post-Discount)] / Revenue (Pre-Discount) Lastly, the score can be calculated as = 'Decrease in Profits' - 10 x 'Decrease in Revenue' x 100% The impact on profits, impact on revenues, and corresponding scores for each category can then be calculated as follows: Category Decrease in Profits Decrease in Revenue Score Clothing 42.70% 3.79% = 42.70 - 3.79 x 10 = 42.70 - 37.92 = 4.776 = 4.78 \u00a0 Electronics 38.39% 3.44% = 38.39 - 3.44 x 10 = 38.39 - 34.40 = 3.994 = 3.99 \u00a0 Food 41.05% 3.85% = 41.05 - 3.85 x 10 = 41.05 - 38.53 = 2.524 = 2.52 \u00a0 Furniture 41.68% 4.05% = 41.68 - 4.05 x 10 = 41.68 - 40.46 = 1.218 = 1.22 Please note, provided scores deviate from stated formulas given that unrounded inputs were used. Reported scores are to be rounded to 2 decimal places per prompt.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "States that the total score for the Furniture product category is 1.22 (acceptable range is 1.20 to 1.24).",
"sources": "General_sales_data.csv",
"justification": "To calculate the impact on profits, impact on revenues, and corresponding scores, we first need to calculate the profits and revenues with discount, and without discount. To do so, we need to add 4 columns: - Profits (Post-Discount): [Unit_Price x (1-Discount) - Unit_Cost] x Quantity_Sold - Profits (Pre-Discount): [Unit_Price - Unit_Cost] x Quantity_Sold - Revenue (Post-discount): Unit_Price x (1-Discount) x Quantity_Sold - Revenue (Pre-discount): Unit_Price x Quantity_Sold Once we have these new fields, we can summarize revenues and profits using a pivot table using the following: - Rows: Product_Category - Values: Sum of Profits (Post-Discount), sum of Profits (Pre-Discount), sum of Total Revenue (Post-discount), and sum of Total Revenue (Pre-discount) This gives us the following values: Row Labels Profits (Post-Discount) Profits (Pre-Discount) Revenue (Post-discount) Revenue (Pre-discount) Clothing $981,485 $1,712,958 $18,555,262 $19,286,734 Electronics $969,866 $1,574,320 $16,966,587 $17,571,041 Food $837,718 $1,421,108 $14,558,496 $15,141,886 Furniture $1,037,835 $1,779,461 $17,588,655 $18,330,281 Once we have this, we can calculate the % decrease in profits and % decrease in revenue as follows: - Decrease in Profits: [Profits (Pre-Discount) - Profits (Post-Discount)] / Profits (Pre-Discount) - Decrease in Revenue: [Revenue (Pre-Discount) - Revenue (Post-Discount)] / Revenue (Pre-Discount) Lastly, the score can be calculated as = 'Decrease in Profits' - 10 x 'Decrease in Revenue' x 100 % The impact on profits, impact on revenues, and corresponding scores for each category can then be calculated as follows: Category Decrease in Profits Decrease in Revenue Score Clothing 42.70% 3.79% = 42.70 - 3.79 x 10 = 42.70 - 37.92 = 4.776 = 4.78 \u00a0 Electronics 38.39% 3.44% = 38.39 - 3.44 x 10 = 38.39 - 34.40 = 3.994 = 3.99 \u00a0 Food 41.05% 3.85% = 41.05 - 3.85 x 10 = 41.05 - 38.53 = 2.524 = 2.52 \u00a0 Furniture 41.68% 4.05% = 41.68 - 4.05 x 10 = 41.68 - 40.46 = 1.218 = 1.22 Please note, provided scores deviate from stated formulas given that unrounded inputs were used. Reported scores are to be rounded to 2 decimal places per prompt.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "Recommends the Furniture product category for BudgetBuy's promotional campaign.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Based on criteria 1 to 4 (IDs 12171, 12172, 12173, and 12174), we know the scores for each category are as follows: Clothing 4.78 Electronics 3.99 Food 2.52 Furniture 1.22 Per the prompt, the category with the lowest score should be prioritized. The Furniture category has the lowest total score, and should therefore be selected for the promotional campaign.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1,
2,
3,
4
]
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "States that the expected reduction in profits from implementing the promotional campaign on the Furniture category next year is $778,707 (acceptable range is $778,600 to $778,800).",
"sources": "",
"justification": "We know from criteria 7 and 8 (IDs 12185 and 12206): - Furniture Profits - next yr: $1,868,434 - Furniture Profits - next yr w/ discount: $1,089,727 Therefore the Reduction in Profits = $778,707 ['Furniture Profits - next yr' - 'Furniture Profits - next yr w/ discount'] No rounding is required given that data is provided in whole dollars per prompt.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
7,
8
]
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "States that the profits associated with the Furniture product category next year without a promotional campaign will be $1,868,434 (acceptable range is $1,867,434 to $1,869,434).",
"sources": "General_sales_data.csv",
"justification": "We know from category 5 (ID 12175) that the impact on BudgetBuy's bottom-line will only come from the Furniture product category sales. Per the prompt, we will focus all subsequent calculations on the Furniture product category. To calculate BudgetBuy's profits next year, if they do not run a promotional campaign on Furniture, we first need to add at least one column: - Profits (Pre-Discount): [Unit_Price - Unit_Cost] x Quantity_Sold Once we have this new field, we can summarize profits without a promotional campaign by using a pivot table using the following: - Rows: Product_Category - Values: Sum of Profits (Pre-Discount) - Filter: Product_Category = 'Furniture' This gives us the follow value for the Furniture category: Profits (Pre-Discount) = $1,779,461 We know from the prompt that volumes will increase by 5% while all other values remain the same. This means that profits will also increase by 5%. Therefore, we can calculate the profits associated with the Furniture category next as follows: - Furniture Profits - last yr: $1,779,461 - Furniture Profits - next yr: $1,868,434.05, rounded to $1,868,434 per prompt ['Furniture Profits - last yr' x (1 + 5%)] Output should be rounded to the nearest whole number.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
5
]
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "States that the profits associated with the Furniture product category next year with a promotional campaign will be $1,089,727 (acceptable range is $1,088,727 to $1,090,727).",
"sources": "General_sales_data.csv",
"justification": "We know from category 5 (ID 12175) that the impact on BudgetBuy's bottom-line will only come from the Furniture product category sales. Per the prompt, we will focus all subsequent calculations on the Furniture product category.\u00a0 To calculate BudgetBuy's profits next year, if they do run a promotional campaign on Furniture, we first need to add at least one column: - Profits (Post-Discount): [Unit_Price x (1-Discount) - Unit_Cost] x Quantity_Sold Once we have this new field, we can summarize revenues and profits using a pivot table using the following: - Rows: Product_Category - Values: Sum of Profits (Post-Discount) - Filter: Product_Category = 'Furniture' This gives us the following values for the Furniture category: Profits (Post-Discount) $1,037,835 We know from the prompt that volumes will increase by 5% while all other values remain the same. This means that profits will also increase by 5% Therefore, we can calculate the profits associated with the Furniture category next year as follows: - Furniture Profits - last yr w/ discount: $1,037,835 - Furniture Profits - next yr w/ discount: $1,089,726.75 = $1,089,727 rounded per prompt ['Furniture Profits - last yr w/ discount' x (1 + 5%)] Output should be rounded to the nearest whole number.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
5
]
},
"criterion 9": {
"description": "States that the promotional campaign might bolster the sales of all categories for one or more of the following reasons: - The campaign may drive more new customers to the client's stores - The campaign may drive existing customers to visit the client's stores more frequently - The campaign may drive customers to spend more overall (e.g., because they believe they are getting a good value)",
"sources": "",
"justification": "A consultant would readily state that the promotional campaign might bolster the sales of other categories for one or more of the following reasons: - The campaign may drive more new customers to the client's stores - The campaign may drive existing customers to visit the client's stores more frequently - The campaign may drive customers to spend more overall (e.g., because they believe they are getting a good value)",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 10": {
"description": "Presents the answers in a memo",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "The prompt had explicitly asked for the answers to be presented in a memo.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Style"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
}
}
|
documents/1150/General_sales_data.csv
|
1,149
|
Consulting
|
One View Bank is a European card issuer with 3 flagship cards: "One View Standard", "One View Premium", and "One View Advantage". One View Standard has an annual fee of $0 per user in the first year and $39 per user every year after that; there is an average 25% APR with a 1.5% interchange fee. One View Premium has a standard annual fee of $350 per user; there is an average 20% APR with a 2.5% interchange fee. One View Advantage (their travel card) has an annual fee of $0 per user the first year and $150 per user every year after that; there is an average 25% APR with a 2.0% interchange fee. APR and interchange fees are levied as a percentage of spend.
Can you find out how much more the average One View Premium cardholder spends annually than the average One View Standard cardholder based on the attached data? In addition, how much more in average monthly spend does a One View Standard cardholder have that is subject to interest charges than a One View Premium cardholder and a One View Advantage cardholder? Next, what is the most likely reason the One View Advantage card is generating higher "Other Fees" than the other card offerings? Lastly, the bank is looking to convert One View Standard cardholders to one of the other two card offerings after their first year to generate more revenue per customer. Which card should One View be converting its One View Standard cardholders to? Assume that when a customer changes its card, they change their behavior to match the pool of their new card. Therefore, base this recommendation on average year 2 total revenue for each card type relative to One View Standard.
The attached dataset provided represents the total fees generated from each account for September 2025; the data is indicative of an average month. Keep in mind that each account in the sample set of data was initiated on January 1st, 2025 and annual fees are charged on the day of account initiation. In the dataset, Column E “Other Fees” typically refers to fees such as foreign transaction fees and miscellaneous transaction fees. Please round all final calculations to 2 decimal places. Show your calculations
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "Identifies that the average One View Premium card user spends $18,229.65 more annually than the average One View Standard card user (acceptable range is $18,220 to $18,240).",
"sources": "One View Bank September 2025 Sample Set - Fee Chart.csv",
"justification": "To identify how much more does an average One View Premium card user spends over a One View Standard card user, we must do the following: For One View Premium: Filter column B on One View Premium and take the sum of all numeric values in column D and get the total interchange revenue for One View Premium as 2,494.85. Given that the interchange fee is levied as a percentage of spend, then total card user spend for One View Premium = Total Interchange revenue for One View Premium / Interchange fee rate for One View Premium card = 2,494.85/0.025 = 99,794 Then, count the number of One View Premium accounts as 17 Therefore the average Annual spend per One View Premium card user = (99,794/17) *12 = 70,442.824 (rounded to 2 decimal places per prompt) For One View Standard : Filter column B on One View Standard and take the sum of all numeric values in column D and get the total interchange revenue for One View Standard as 1,109.53. Given that the interchange fee is levied as a percentage of spend, then total card user spend for One View Standard = Total Interchange revenue for One View Standard / Interchange fee rate for One View Standard card = 1,109.53/0.015 = 73968.6666667 Then, count the number of One View Standard accounts as 17 Therefore the average Annual spend per One View Standard card user = (73968.6666667/17) *12 = 52,213.176 (rounded to 2 decimal places per prompt) Therefore, the difference between the average annual spend per One View Standard card user from the average annual spend per One View Premium Card user is $70,442.824 - $52,213.176 = $18,229.647 = $18229.65 (rounded to 2 decimal places per prompt) The average One View Premium card user spends $18,229.65 more annually than the average One View Standard card user.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "Identifies that One View Standard users have $7,267.80 more in average monthly spend subject to interest charges than One View Premium card users (acceptable range is $7,250.00 to $7,280.00).",
"sources": "One View Bank September 2025 Sample Set - Fee Chart.csv",
"justification": "To identify how much more in average spend a One View Standard card user has attributed to interest charges monthly compared to the two other cards, we must do the following: For One View Standard: Filter column B on One View Standard and take the sum of all numeric values in column C and get the total interest income for One View Standard as 4775.45. Then, count the number of One View Standard accounts as 17 Monthly spend subject to interest charges per One View Standard User = ((Interest income for One View Standard/number of One View Standard accounts)) / (APR/12 months) = ((4775.45/17)*12)/0.25= 13,483.624 For One View Premium: Filter column B on One View Premium and take the sum of all numeric values in column C and get the total interest income for One View Premium as 1761.15. Then, count the number of One View Premium accounts as 17 Monthly spend subject to interest charges per One View Premium User = ((Interest income for One View Premium/number of One View Premium accounts)) / (APR/12 months) = ((1761.15./17)*12)/0.20= $6,215.82 For One View Advantage: Filter column B on One View Advantage and take the sum of all numeric values in column C and get the total interest income for One View Advantage as 3738.28 Then, count the number of One View Advantage accounts as 16 Monthly spend subject to interest charges per One View Advantage User = ((Interest income for One View Advantage/number of One View Advantage accounts)) / (APR/12 months) = ((3738.28/16)*12)/0.25= $11,214.840 Subtract One View Advantage number from One View Standard number to get the difference: $13,483.624 - $11,214.840= $2,268.784 = $2,268.78 (rounded per prompt) Therefore, One View Standard users have $2,268.78 more monthly spend subject to interest charges than a given One View Advantage card user.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "Identifies that One View Standard users have $2,268.78 more in average monthly spend subject to interest charges than One View Advantage users (acceptable range is $2,250.00 to $2,280.00).",
"sources": "One View Bank September 2025 Sample Set - Fee Chart.csv",
"justification": "To identify how much more in average spend a One View Standard card user has attributed to interest charges monthly compared to the two other cards, we must do the following: For One View Standard: Filter column B on One View Standard and take the sum of all numeric values in column C and get the total interest income for One View Standard as 4775.45. Then, count the number of One View Standard accounts as 17 Monthly spend subject to interest charges per One View Standard User = ((Interest income for One View Standard/number of One View Standard accounts)) / (APR/12 months) = ((4775.45/17)*12)/0.25= 13,483.624 For One View Premium: Filter column B on One View Premium and take the sum of all numeric values in column C and get the total interest income for One View Premium as 1761.15. Then, count the number of One View Premium accounts as 17 Monthly spend subject to interest charges per One View Premium User = ((Interest income for One View Premium/number of One View Premium accounts)) / (APR/12 months) = ((1761.15./17)*12)/0.20= $6,215.82 For One View Advantage: Filter column B on One View Advantage and take the sum of all numeric values in column C and get the total interest income for One View Advantage as 3738.28 Then, count the number of One View Advantage accounts as 16 Monthly spend subject to interest charges per One View Advantage User = ((Interest income for One View Advantage/number of One View Advantage accounts)) / (APR/12 months) = ((3738.28/16)*12)/0.25= $11,214.840 Subtract One View Advantage number from One View Standard number to get the difference: $13,483.624 - $11,214.840= $2,268.784 = $2,268.78 (rounded per prompt) Therefore, One View Standard users have $2,268.78 more monthly spend subject to interest charges than a given One View Advantage card user.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "Identifies the reason why the One View Advantage card is generating more revenue in the 'Other Fees' category is because it is likely accumulating more in foreign transaction fees, given it is a travel card.",
"sources": "One View Bank September 2025 Sample Set - Fee Chart.csv",
"justification": "The One View Advantage card is a travel card and thus must be used by cardholders on international travel where foreign transaction fees occur.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "Recommends that One View Bank converts One View Standard cardholders to One View Advantage cards.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Comparing year 2 revenue difference between Standard, Premium and Advantage Advantage vs Standard = $232.45 (Criterion 6, ID 11751) Premium vs Standard = - 680.39 (Criterion 7, ID 12158) Advantage generates higher revenue hence the bank should convert standard users to advantage users.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
6,
7
]
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "Identifies that One View Bank can generate $232.45 more in revenue in Year 2 per One View Advantage cardholder versus the average One View Standard cardholder (acceptable range is $232 to $233).",
"sources": "One View Bank September 2025 Sample Set - Fee Chart.csv",
"justification": "To identify whether to convert One View Standard cardholders to One View Advantage or One View Premium, we must calculate the average total annual revenue for each card in Year 2. a. Calculate One View Standard Year 2 average total annual revenue: i. Filter column B on One View Standard and take the sum of all numeric values in column C. ii. Filter column B on One View Standard and take the sum of all numeric values in column D. iii. Filter column B on One View Standard and take the sum of all numeric values in column E. iv. Combine the sums from column C, D, and E and multiply by 12 (number of months in the year). v. Divide this number by 17 (number of One View Standard accounts) to get the average total annual revenue per user. vi. Add $39 (annual fee in year 2) to get One View Standard average total annual revenue in Year 2 per cardholder: $4,492.04. b. Calculate One View Advantage Year 2 average total annual revenue: i. Filter column B on One View Advantage and take the sum of all numeric values in column C. ii. Filter column B on One View Advantage and take the sum of all numeric values in column D. iii. Filter column B on One View Advantage and take the sum of all numeric values in column E. iv. Combine the sums from column C, D, and E and multiply by 12 (number of months in the year). v. Divide this number by 16 (number of One View Advantage accounts) to get the total average revenue per user. vi. Add $150 (annual fee in year 2) to get One View Advantage the average total annual revenue in Year 2 per cardholder: $4,724.50. One View Advantage cardholders will generate $4,724.50 on average in Year 2, while One View Standard cardholders will generate $4,492.04 in Year 2. Given One View can generate $232.45 more per One View Advantage cardholder, they should convert One View Standard cardholders to One View Advantage.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "Identifies that One View Bank can generate $680.39 less in revenue in Year 2 per One View Premium cardholder versus the average One View Standard cardholder (acceptable range is $675.00 to $685.00).",
"sources": "One View Bank September 2025 Sample Set - Fee Chart.csv",
"justification": "To identify whether to convert One View Standard cardholders to One View Advantage or One View Premium, we must calculate the average total annual revenue for each card in Year 2. a. Calculate One View Standard Year 2 average total annual revenue: i. Filter column B on One View Standard and take the sum of all numeric values in column C. ii. Filter column B on One View Standard and take the sum of all numeric values in column D. iii. Filter column B on One View Standard and take the sum of all numeric values in column E. iv. Combine the sums from column C, D, and E and multiply by 12 (number of months in the year). v. Divide this number by 17 (number of One View Standard accounts) to get the average total annual revenue per user. vi. Add $39 (annual fee in year 2) to get One View Standard average total annual revenue in Year 2 per cardholder: $4,492.04. b. Calculate One View Premium Year 2 average total annual revenue per user: i. Filter column B on One View Premium and take the sum of all numeric values in column C. ii. Filter column B on One View Premium and take the sum of all numeric values in column D. iii. Filter column B on One View Premium and take the sum of all numeric values in column E. iv. Combine the sums from column C, D, and E and multiply by 12 (number of months in the year). v. Divide this number by 17 (number of One View Premium accounts) to get the average total annual revenue per user. vi. Add $350 (annual fee in year 2) to get One View Premium average total annual revenue in Year 2 per cardholder: $3,811.65. Revenue Premium Card Holder - Revenue Standard Cardholder = 3811.65 - 4492.04 = -680.39",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
}
}
|
documents/1149/One View Bank September 2025 Sample Set - Fee Chart.csv
|
1,166
|
Consulting
|
My client is a grocery chain based in the US that is trying to evaluate their scope 1 and scope 3 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions across various suppliers in their key departments based on the attached data from three stores for 2024. Can you help me figure out which store had the highest total aggregated scope 1 emissions in 2024 and provide its associated scope 1 emissions? For this store, could you also determine its total scope 3 emissions, assuming for simplicity that scope 3 emissions should be estimated by multiplying scope 1 emissions by the scope 3 emissions factor for each entry in the data set? Next, could you calculate the combined scope 1 and scope 3 emissions for the department that had the highest total aggregated scope 1 emissions in 2024 across all 3 stores combined? Finally, the team is aware that reducing emissions of the supply chain is likely to increase the costs of the associated products that the supplier charges to the client. Please recommend one way that the client can respond to the higher costs. Please provide all underlying calculations, do not round intermediate calculations, provide all requested output rounded to two decimal places and present emissions data as tons CO2.
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "Determines that Union Square had the highest scope 1 emissions",
"sources": "Emissions data.csv",
"justification": "To determine which store had the highest scope 1 emissions, we create a pivot table, using the Emissions data, with Rows=Store and Value=Sum of Scope 1 emissions. This results in the table below: Store SUM of Scope 1 emissions in tons CO2 Embarcadero 3396.3 Lombard Street 3420.9 Union Square 3584.7 Union Square has the highest total aggregate scope 1 emissions of 3,584.700, rounded to 3,584.70 per prompt.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "Computes that the scope 1 emissions of Union Square store were 3,584.70 tons CO2 (acceptable value is 3,584.70 tons CO2)",
"sources": "Emissions data.csv",
"justification": "From criterion 12259, Union square has the highest total aggregated scope 1 emissions. To determine the total aggregated scope 1 emissions, we create a pivot table, using the Emissions data, with Rows=Store and Value=Sum of Scope 1 emissions. This results in the table below: Store SUM of Scope 1 emissions in tons CO2 Embarcadero 3396.3 Lombard Street 3420.9 Union Square 3584.7 Union Square has the highest total aggregate scope 1 emissions of 3,584.700, rounded to 3,584.70 per prompt. Rounded to 2 decimal places per prompt.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1
]
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "Calculates the scope 3 emissions for the Union Square store to be 4,917.50 tons CO2 (acceptable value is 4,917.50 tons CO2)",
"sources": "Emissions data.csv",
"justification": "To solve for scope 3 emissions, we create the column 'Scope 3 emissions' in the Emissions data set and populate it by multiply the scope 3 emissions factor in column E by scope 1 emissions in column D. Once this has been done for all rows, we then create a pivot table with Rows=Store and Values=Sum of Scope 3 emissions. This results in the table below: Store SUM of Scope 3 emission Embarcadero 4651.07 Lombard Street 5062.13 Union Square 4917.50 Therefore, the total aggregated Scope 3 emissions for Union Square is 4,917.500 tons CO2, rounded to 4,917.50 per prompt. Rounded to the 2 decimal places per prompt.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1
]
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "Determines that the combined scope 1 and scope 3 emissions for the meat department is 8,683.34 tons CO2 (acceptable value is 8,683.34 tons CO2)",
"sources": "Emissions data.csv",
"justification": "From criterion 12263, Meat has been identified as the department with the with the highest aggregated Scope 1 emissions in 2024. To the combined scope 1 and scope 3 emissions for Meat, we create a pivot table, using the Emissions data, with Rows=Department, Value=Sum of Scope 1 emissions and Sum of Scope 3 emissions and Filter=Department (Meat) To solve for scope 3 emissions, we create the column 'Scope 3 emissions' in the Emissions data set and populate it by multiply the scope 3 emissions factor in column E by scope 1 emissions in column D. This results in the table below: Department SUM of Scope 1 emission SUM of Scope 3 emission Meat 3640.80 5042.54 Therefore, the combined scope 1 and scope 3 emissions for Meat is 3640.800+5042.540 = 8,683.340 tons CO2, rounded to 8,683.34 tons CO2 per prompt. Rounded to 2 decimal places per prompt.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
5
]
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "States that meat is the department that has the highest total aggregated scope 1 emissions in 2024",
"sources": "Emissions data.csv",
"justification": "To determine which department has the highest scope 1 emissions, we create a pivot table, using the Emissions data, with Rows=Department and Value=Sum of Scope 1 emissions. This results in the table below: Department SUM of Scope 1 emissions in tons CO2 Dairy 1612.50 Frozen 795.70 Meat 3640.80 Other 908.00 Packaged dry food 837.90 Produce 885.10 Seafood 1721.90 Meat has the highest total aggregate scope 1 emissions of 3,640.80",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "Recommends one of the following as ways to deal with increasing costs associated with reduced emissions: - pass along the costs in the form of higher prices to consumers - the company could enter into longer term contracts which help suppliers have the certainty to finance the emissions reductions projects directly. - engage in cost-cutting initiatives to offset the cost (e.g., strategic sourcing) - reduce internal profitability targets - source offsetting funding from other external sources (e.g., government, environmental associations)",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Consultants would readily recommend at least one of the following as ways to deal with increasing costs associated with reduced emissions: - pass along the costs in the form of higher prices to consumers - the company could enter into longer term contracts which help suppliers have the certainty to finance the emissions reductions projects directly. - engage in cost-cutting initiatives to offset the cost (e.g., strategic sourcing) - reduce internal profitability targets - source offsetting funding from other external sources (e.g., government, environmental associations)",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
}
}
|
documents/1166/Emissions data.csv
|
1,169
|
Consulting
|
My client, a small airline company, is looking to expand its geographic reach. Based on the enclosed data, could you recommend the top 2 most attractive geo regions for them to enter, providing your selections in ranked order within a table that includes the total passenger volume and average big mac price for each selected geo region? Please also state the biggest downside risk of choosing a region based on these two factors.
Please select the top 2 regions by ranking all regions according to total enplaned passengers from 2015 as well as by average big mac prices (a simple average of dollar prices for relevant countries), where a higher value is better for both metrics and enplanment volume ranking is weighted 3x as much as big mac prices when combining these two metric rankings to determine which region is most attractive. Please exclude regions that are not represented in the passenger data as well as data from the airlines Frontier and Sun Country. Please also assume that the pound is worth more than the dollar at the time of this analysis and use the supplied geo region definitions. Include all underlying calculations, round passenger volume to the nearest integer and the big mac average price to the nearest cent.
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "Lists US as the top region in the final recommendation",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Since the US is ranked the top in both categories, by definition it will be the top in the combined ranking, and thus the top recommendation",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
7,
8
]
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "States that US passenger volume is 19,028,799 (acceptable value is 19,028,799)",
"sources": "passenger data.csv",
"justification": "Using the formula =SUMIFS(F:F,E:E,'Enplaned',I:I,'2015',D:D,[region name],C:C,'<>Frontier Airlines',C:C,'<>Sun Country Airlines'), substituting region name for each region present, we get the following results for passenger volume: US 19,028,799.00 Asia 2,189,182.00 Europe 1,584,562.00 Canada 774,785.00 Mexico 506,165.00 Middle East 217,106.00 Australia / Oceania 193,443.00 Central America 80,066.00 Thus, US has a value of 19,028,799",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1
]
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "States that the US's Big Mac average price is $4.79 (acceptable value is $4.79)",
"sources": "big mac.csv; country region mapping.csv",
"justification": "First, we calculate the value in dollars for each country, using the formula =E2/F2 (local price divided by conversion to dollar). Then, we associate the countries to regions across both relevant files, using =INDEX([region column in country-region file],MATCH([country in big mac index file],[country column in country-region file],0)). Finally, we do =AVERAGEIFS([converted price column],[column of region associated to country from the previous index-match],N2) and we get: US $4.79 Canada $4.54 Central America $4.03 Europe $3.93 Australia / Oceania $3.92 Middle East $3.79 South America $3.47 Mexico $3.11 Asia $2.83 Africa $2.13 Thus, US has a value of 4.79",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1
]
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "Lists Europe as the 2nd top region in the final recommendation",
"sources": "big mac.csv; country region mapping.csv; passenger data.csv",
"justification": "Using the formula =SUMIFS(F:F,E:E,'Enplaned',I:I,'2015',D:D,[region name],C:C,'<>Frontier Airlines',C:C,'<>Sun Country Airlines'), substituting region name for each region present, we get the following results for passenger volume, ranked: 1. US 19,028,799.00 2. Asia 2,189,182.00 3. Europe 1,584,562.00 4. Canada 774,785.00 5. Mexico 506,165.00 6. Middle East 217,106.00 7. Australia / Oceania 193,443.00 8. Central America 80,066.00 Then, we calculate the value in dollars for each country, using the formula =E2/F2 (local price divided by conversion to dollar). Then, we associate the countries to regions across both relevant files, using =INDEX([region column in country-region file],MATCH([country in big mac index file],[country column in country-region file],0)). Finally, we do =AVERAGEIFS([converted price column],[column of region associated to country from the previous index-match],N2) and we get: US $4.79 Canada $4.54 Central America $4.03 Europe $3.93 Australia / Oceania $3.92 Middle East $3.79 South America $3.47 Mexico $3.11 Asia $2.83 Africa $2.13 Removing Africa and South America, which should not be included since we don't have passenger data for them, we get: 1. US $4.79 2. Canada $4.54 3. Central America $4.03 4. Europe $3.93 5. Australia / Oceania $3.92 6. Middle East $3.79 7. Mexico $3.11 8. Asia $2.83 Doing 3*passenger volume ranking + big mac ranking, we get: Europe 13 Mexico 22 Canada 14 Asia 14 Australia / Oceania 26 US 4 Middle East 24 Central America 27 Europe is the second lowest number in the combined ranking, so it is the second top region",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1
]
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "States that Europe passenger volume as 1,584,562 (acceptable value is 1,584,562)",
"sources": "passenger data.csv",
"justification": "Using the formula =SUMIFS(F:F,E:E,'Enplaned',I:I,'2015',D:D,[region name],C:C,'<>Frontier Airlines',C:C,'<>Sun Country Airlines'), substituting region name for each region present, we get the following results for passenger volume: US 19,028,799.00 Asia 2,189,182.00 Europe 1,584,562.00 Canada 774,785.00 Mexico 506,165.00 Middle East 217,106.00 Australia / Oceania 193,443.00 Central America 80,066.00 Here, we get Europe's result of 1,584,562",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
4
]
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "States that Europe's Big Mac average price is $3.93 (acceptable value is $3.93)",
"sources": "big mac.csv; country region mapping.csv",
"justification": "First, we calculate the value in dollars for each country, using the formula =E2/F2 (local price divided by conversion to dollar). Then, we associate the countries to regions across both relevant files, using =INDEX([region column in country-region file],MATCH([country in big mac index file],[country column in country-region file],0)). Finally, we do =AVERAGEIFS([converted price column],[column of region associated to country from the previous index-match],N2) and we get: US $4.79 Canada $4.54 Central America $4.03 Europe $3.93 Australia / Oceania $3.92 Middle East $3.79 South America $3.47 Mexico $3.11 Asia $2.83 Africa $2.13 Here, we get Europe's result of 3.93",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
4
]
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "Identifies US as the best ranked for total enplaned passengers",
"sources": "passenger data.csv",
"justification": "Using the formula =SUMIFS(F:F,E:E,'Enplaned',I:I,'2015',D:D,[region name],C:C,'<>Frontier Airlines',C:C,'<>Sun Country Airlines'), substituting region name for each region present, we get the following results for passenger volume: US 19,028,799.00 Asia 2,189,182.00 Europe 1,584,562.00 Canada 774,785.00 Mexico 506,165.00 Middle East 217,106.00 Australia / Oceania 193,443.00 Central America 80,066.00 Thus, The US ranks first",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "Identifies US as the best ranked for average big mac prices",
"sources": "big mac.csv; country region mapping.csv; passenger data.csv",
"justification": "First, we calculate the value in dollars for each country, using the formula =E2/F2 (local price divided by conversion to dollar). Then, we associate the countries to regions across both relevant files, using =INDEX([region column in country-region file],MATCH([country in big mac index file],[country column in country-region file],0)). Finally, we do =AVERAGEIFS([converted price column],[column of region associated to country from the previous index-match],N2) and we get: US $4.79 Canada $4.54 Central America $4.03 Europe $3.93 Australia / Oceania $3.92 Middle East $3.79 South America $3.47 Mexico $3.11 Asia $2.83 Africa $2.13 Removing Africa and South America, which should not be included since we don't have passenger data for them, we get: 1. US $4.79 2. Canada $4.54 3. Central America $4.03 4. Europe $3.93 5. Australia / Oceania $3.92 6. Middle East $3.79 7. Mexico $3.11 8. Asia $2.83 Thus, the US ranks first",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 9": {
"description": "Output is in table format",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Follows the request to build a table in the prompt.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Style"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 10": {
"description": "States one of the following as the biggest risk of choosing a region based on the two factors: - Intense competition - Potential misalignment with company niche - Potential misalignment with company's existing geo footprint - Leaves out other important considerations - Does not account for differences within each georegion",
"sources": "",
"justification": "A consultant would readily state one of the following as the biggest risk of choosing a region based on the two factors: - Intense competition - Potential misalignment with company niche - Potential misalignment with company's existing geo footprint - Leaves out other important considerations - Does not account for differences within each georegion",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
}
}
|
documents/1169/big mac.csv
documents/1169/country region mapping.csv
documents/1169/passenger data.csv
|
1,170
|
Consulting
|
Our client, ABC Incorporation, manufactures spare parts for automobiles. The CEO has reached out stating that the rejection rate has increased from 2023 to 2025 (inclusive) and he wants to control it. Can you check the CEO’s hypothesis, and state whether this is true or not? Could you then report the top reason for rejection in each of 2023, 2024 and 2025, along with their percentage share of overall rejected cases in the corresponding year? Based on the top reasons identified, please suggest corrective measures to reduce rejections. Additionally, if we had an option to sell off all the rejected orders at 50% discount to a scrap dealer, what would have been the total additional revenue for 2023-2025 combined in that case? Please provide all underlying calculations, report all percentages to the nearest one decimal place and provide revenue to the nearest whole dollar.
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "Calculates the rejection rate in 2023 as 40.7% (Acceptable value is 40.7%)",
"sources": "orders.csv",
"justification": "Based on the 'Status' column in the provided dataset orders.csv, we can calculate the number of 'Approved' & 'Rejected' orders. The overall data contains 658 orders with 241 orders in 2023, 216 orders in 2024, 201 orders in 2025. Among the 241 orders in 2023, 143 were approved and 98 were rejected, this gives us the Rejection rate = 98/241 = 40.66%, which is rounded off to 40.7% as instructed in the prompt (Rounded off to nearest one decimal place)",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "Calculates the rejection rate in 2024 as 32.4% (Acceptable value is 32.4%)",
"sources": "orders.csv",
"justification": "Based on the 'Status' column in the provided dataset orders.csv, we can calculate the number of 'Approved' & 'Rejected' orders. The overall data contains 658 orders with 241 orders in 2023, 216 orders in 2024, 201 orders in 2025. Among the 216 orders in 2024, 146 were approved and 70 were rejected, this gives us the Rejection rate = 70/216 = 32.41%, which is rounded off to 32.4% as instructed in the prompt (Rounded off to nearest one decimal place)",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "Calculates the rejection rate in 2025 as 28.4% (Acceptable value is 28.4%)",
"sources": "orders.csv",
"justification": "Based on the 'Status' column in the provided dataset orders.csv, we can calculate the number of 'Approved' & 'Rejected' orders. The overall data contains 658 orders with 241 orders in 2023, 216 orders in 2024, 201 orders in 2025. Among the 201 orders in 2025, 144 were approved and 57 were rejected, this gives us the Rejection rate = 57/201 = 28.36%, which is rounded off to 28.4% as instructed in the prompt (Rounded off to nearest one decimal place)",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "States that the CEO's hypothesis is not true.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Rejection rate has dropped from 40.7% [12345] in 2023 to 32.4% [12346] in 2024 & eventually to 28.4% [12347] in 2025, which depicts a clear downward trajectory",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1,
2,
3
]
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "Identifies 'Finishing' as the reason for highest rejections in 2023",
"sources": "orders.csv",
"justification": "Based on column 'Reason for Rejection' from the dataset orders.csv, for year 2023, we have the following count of orders against different reasons: Total Rejected Orders: 98 'Dimensions' - 21; 'Finishing' - 29; 'Material' - 12; 'Packaging' - 11; 'Rust' - 25 Among these, Finishing has the highest count of orders with 29.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "Identifies 'Rust' as the reason for highest rejections in 2024",
"sources": "orders.csv",
"justification": "Based on column 'Reason for Rejection', for year 2024 from the dataset orders.csv, we have the following count of orders against different reasons: Total Rejected Orders: 70 'Dimensions' - 11; 'Finishing' - 17; 'Material' - 6; 'Packaging' - 13; 'Rust' - 23 Among these, Rust has the highest count of orders with 23.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "Identifies 'Finishing' as the reason for highest rejections in 2025",
"sources": "orders.csv",
"justification": "Based on column 'Reason for Rejection', for year 2025 from the dataset orders.csv, we have the following count of orders against different reasons: Total Rejected Orders: 57 'Dimensions' - 10; 'Finishing' - 19; 'Material' - 9; 'Packaging' - 8; 'Rust' - 11 Among these, Finishing has the highest count of rejected orders with 19.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "Calculates the percentage share of cases rejected due to 'Finishing' issues, out of total rejected cases in 2023 as 29.6% (Acceptable value is 29.6%)",
"sources": "orders.csv",
"justification": "Based on column 'Reason for Rejection' and based on criterion 12349, for year 2023, we have the following count of orders against different reasons: Total Rejected Orders: 98 'Dimensions' - 21; 'Finishing' - 29; 'Material' - 12; 'Packaging' - 11; 'Rust' - 25 Among these, Finishing has the highest count of orders with 29. Percentage contribution of 'Finishing' to rejected orders in 2023 = 29/98 = 29.59%, rounded off to 29.6% as per prompt instructions (Rounded off to nearest one decimal place)",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
5
]
},
"criterion 9": {
"description": "Calculates the percentage share of cases rejected due to 'Rust' issues, out of total rejected cases in 2024 as 32.9% (Acceptable value is 32.9%)",
"sources": "orders.csv",
"justification": "Based on column 'Reason for Rejection', for year 2024 and based on criterion 12350, we have the following count of orders against different reasons: Total Rejected Orders: 70 'Dimensions' - 11; 'Finishing' - 17; 'Material' - 6; 'Packaging' - 13; 'Rust' - 23 Among these, Rust has the highest count of orders with 23. Percentage contribution of 'Rust' to rejected orders in 2024 = 23/70 = 32.86%, rounded off to 32.9% as per prompt instructions (Rounded off to nearest one decimal place)",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
6
]
},
"criterion 10": {
"description": "Calculates the percentage share of cases rejected due to 'Finishing' issues, out of total rejected cases in 2025 as 33.3% (Acceptable value is 33.3%)",
"sources": "orders.csv",
"justification": "Based on column 'Reason for Rejection', for year 2025 and based on criterion 123445, we have the following count of orders against different reasons: Total Rejected Orders: 57 'Dimensions' - 10; 'Finishing' - 19; 'Material' - 9; 'Packaging' - 8; 'Rust' - 11 Among these, Finishing has the highest count of rejected orders with 19. Percentage contribution of 'Finishing' to rejected orders in 2025 = 19/57 = 33.33%, rounded off to 33.3% as per prompt instructions (Rounded off to nearest one decimal place)",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
7
]
},
"criterion 11": {
"description": "Suggests at least one of the following corrective measures to reduce rejection: 1. Better Storage Environment: Prevents formation of rust on metal parts. 2. Usage of Modern High Quality Tools & Machines: Helpful in more finished product 3. Improved Packaging: Helps in maintaining the finish of the product and prevent rust as well 4. Employee training 5. Hiring a more skilled workforce 6. Employee incentives to reduce quality errors 7. Review and/or standardize production procedures 8. Changing source inputs to more rust-resistant materials 9. Reducing timeframes between production and shipping",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Criteria 12349 Identifies 'Finishing' as the reason for highest rejections in 2023 Criteria 12350 Identifies 'Rust' as the reason for highest rejections in 2024 Criteria 12445 Identifies 'Finishing' as the reason for highest rejections in 2025 A consultant would readily suggest at least one of the following corrective measures to reduce rejection: 1. Better Storage Environment: Prevents formation of rust on metal parts. 2. Usage of Modern High Quality Tools & Machines: Helpful in more finished product 3. Improved Packaging: Helps in maintaining the finish of the product and prevent rust as well 4. Employee training 5. Hiring a more skilled workforce 6. Employee incentives to reduce quality errors 7. Review and/or standardize production procedures 8. Changing source inputs to more rust-resistant materials 9. Reducing timeframes between production and shipping",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
5,
6,
7
]
},
"criterion 12": {
"description": "Calculates the total order value of rejected orders as $123,602. (Accepted value is $123,602)",
"sources": "orders.csv",
"justification": "Adding up the column 'Order Value' from the dataset orders.csv, for orders with the 'Status' as 'Rejected'. There are a total of 225 orders, adding up to $123,602 in order value. No rounding is required, as provided data matches prompt specifications.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 13": {
"description": "Calculates the potential additional revenue by selling rejected orders at a discount as $61,801 (Acceptable value is $61,801)",
"sources": "orders.csv",
"justification": "Adding up the column 'Order Value' for orders from the dataset orders.csv, with the 'Status' as 'Rejected'. There are a total of 225 orders, adding up to $123,602 in order value (criteria 12451). As mentioned in the prompt, it can be sold at a discount of 50%, hence potential revenue = 50% of $123,602 = $61,801.00 ~$61,801 (rounded to nearest whole number as per prompt)",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
12
]
}
}
|
documents/1170/orders.csv
|
1,171
|
Consulting
|
The attached file contains the data of a sedan manufacturing firm. The sedan assembly line consists of five dedicated workstations (Tasks 1-5) operating in a continuous flow configuration to produce a car in a single assemble line. All tasks operate simultaneously on different cars in sequence (i.e., while one car is in Task 3, others are in Tasks 1, 2, 4, and 5). The slowest task determines the overall throughput of the line.
Please calculate the average time taken for each task (Task 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) across the data provided. Also calculate the average time taken between produced cars when production is in steady-state. What will be the annual production capacity of an assembly line, assuming 24 hours of work per day & 300 working days per year?
The CEO of an automotive maker that currently produces hatchbacks wants to explore sedan production and has set a target revenue of INR 1400 Million by the end of 2026 (starting production January 2026). Given that one car is priced at INR 1 Million, how many assembly lines do we need to achieve this target? What is the headcount of employees currently placed for the reference assembly line & how many total employees are required? Finally, share one risk involved if the CEO goes ahead with this plan.
Please round off the time to one decimal place and other numbers to the nearest whole number.
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "Calculates the Average time taken for Task 1 as 14.6 Hrs (Acceptable range: 14.5 to 14.7 Hrs)",
"sources": "Task Data.csv",
"justification": "Use the data in the file Task data.csv to create a pivot table with header stage under row, and time taken under values to show both sum of time taken & count of time taken. To calculate the average time for Task 1, divide the sum of time taken item for Task 1 with the corresponding count, resulting in average of 14.6 Hrs. Calculation: Count of Task 1: 102 ; Sum of Time for Task 1: 1487 Hrs; Average Time for Task 1: 1487/ 102 = 14.58 hours, which is rounded off to 14.6 Hrs based on prompt instruction (rounded off to nearest decimal place)",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "Calculates the Average time taken for Task 2 as 14.0 hrs (Acceptable range: 13.9 to 14.1 Hrs)",
"sources": "Task Data.csv",
"justification": "Use the data in the file Task data.csv to create a pivot table with header stage under row, and time taken under values to show both sum of time taken & count of time taken. To calculate the average time for Task 2, divide the sum of time taken item for Task 2 with the corresponding count, resulting in average of 14.0 Hrs. Calculation: Count of Task 2: 98 ; Sum of Time for Task 2: 1371 Hrs; Average Time for Task 2: 1371/ 98 = 13.99 hours, which is rounded off to 14.0 Hrs based on prompt instruction (rounded off to nearest decimal place)",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "Calculates the Average time taken for Task 3 is 15.4 hrs (Acceptable range: 15.3 to 15.5 Hrs)",
"sources": "Task Data.csv",
"justification": "Use the data in the file Task data.csv to create a pivot table with header stage under row, and time taken under values to show both sum of time taken & count of time taken. To calculate the average time for Task 3, divide the sum of time taken item for Task 3 with the corresponding count, resulting in average of 15.4 Hrs. Calculation: Count of Task 3: 90 ; Sum of Time for Task 3: 1382 Hrs; Average Time for Task 3: 1382/ 90 = 15.36 hours, which is rounded off to 15.4 Hrs based on prompt instruction (rounded off to nearest decimal place)",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "Calculates the Average time taken for Task 4 as 14.3 hrs (Acceptable range: 14.2 to 14.4 Hrs)",
"sources": "Task Data.csv",
"justification": "Use the data in the file Task data.csv to create a pivot table with header stage under row, and time taken under values to show both sum of time taken & count of time taken. To calculate the average time for Task 4, divide the sum of time taken item for Task 4 with the corresponding count, resulting in average of 14.3 Hrs. Calculation: Count of Task 4: 96 ; Sum of Time for Task 4: 1374 Hrs; Average Time for Task 4: 1374/ 96 = 14.31 hours, which is rounded off to 14.3 Hrs based on prompt instruction (rounded off to nearest decimal place)",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "Calculates the Average time taken for Task 5 as 14.5 hrs (Acceptable range: 14.4 to 14.6 Hrs)",
"sources": "Task Data.csv",
"justification": "Use the data in the file Task data.csv to create a pivot table with header stage under row, and time taken under values to show both sum of time taken & count of time taken. To calculate the average time for Task 5, divide the sum of time taken item for Task 5 with the corresponding count, resulting in average of 14.5 Hrs. Calculation: Count of Task 5: 113 ; Sum of Time for Task 5: 1636 Hrs; Average Time for Task 5: 1636/ 113 = 14.48 hours, which is rounded off to 14.5 Hrs based on prompt instruction (rounded off to nearest decimal place)",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "Calculates the average time taken between produced cars when production is in steady-state as 15.4 Hrs (Acceptable range: 15.3 to 15.5 Hrs)",
"sources": "",
"justification": "The average production time per car is determined by the highest time-taking task (bottleneck) in the assembly line which is Task 3 (15.4 hours) [Criterion 12423] as calculated in criteria 3 Task Number AVERAGE of Time Taken (In hrs) 1 14.6 (criteria 1) 2 14.0 (criteria 2) 3 15.4 (criteria 3) 4 14.3 (criteria 4) 5 14.5 (criteria 5)",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
3,
1,
2,
4,
5
]
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "Calculates the production capacity per assembly line as 468 cars per year (acceptable range 466 - 471 cars per year)",
"sources": "",
"justification": "For one assembly line, with the plant operating 24 hours/day for 300 days/year, total hours = 7200 (24 \u00d7 300). Using the average time per car of 15.4 hours (from criterion 12426), annual capacity = 7200/15.4 = 467.53, which rounds to 468 cars per year (nearest whole number as per the prompt)",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
6
]
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "Calculates the number of assembly lines needed to fulfill expectations as 3. Acceptable value is 3",
"sources": "",
"justification": "As per the prompt, target revenue is INR 1,400 million at INR 1 million per car, so cars required = 1,400. Since one line produces 468 cars/year (criterion 12427), lines needed = 1400/468 = 2.99, rounded to 3 (nearest whole number).",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
7
]
},
"criterion 9": {
"description": "Reports the current count of employees in reference assembly line as 21. Acceptable value is 21",
"sources": "Task Data.csv",
"justification": "In the data set Task Data.csv, deduping the unique values in Column named 'Employee ID' will give us a list of 21 unique IDs, hence depicting 21 unique employees working on that assembly line.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 10": {
"description": "Calculates the required headcount of employees as 63. Acceptable value is 63",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Since the number of employees in the reference assembly line is 21, and the number of assembly lines needed is 3, the total number of employees needed is 21 [Criterion 12430] * 3 [Criterion 12428] = 63",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
8,
9
]
},
"criterion 11": {
"description": "Identifies one of the following risks: 1. Dilution of market image 2. Timeline Risk 3. Financial Risk 4. Operational Risk 5. Data reliability risk 6. Human resource risk 7. Quality control risk 8. Market Demand Forecasting Risk",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Below are the key risks along with their rationale: 1. Dilution of market image: The client is primarily into hatchbacks right now, launch of sedans might impact their brand image, and might make a dent in their hatchback business. 2. Timeline Risk: The calculations suggest that the client will just closely clear the CEO's cutoff of 1400 cars per year (calculated capacity = 1404 cars per year) in a year, even a slight delay will lead to non-achievement of target 3. Financial Risk: Setting up new assembly lines will incur a lot of fixed capital & employee costs, which can translate into a financial issue if the projected production capacity is not reached/ delayed 4. Operational Risk: Sedan manufacturing is quite different and more complicated than hatchback, hence a lot of operational updates need to be done to ensure compliance to the production schedule. 5. Data Reliability Risk: The entire plan is based on a competitor's data, which may not be accurate, current, or representative of a process that can be replicated. Relying on this data without internal validation is a significant risk. 6. Human Resources Risk: Recruiting and training 63 skilled employees for a new venture is a difficult and time-consuming 7. Quality Control Risk: Establishing new processes with a new workforce across multiple lines increases the risk of quality control failures. 8. Market Demand Forecasting Risk: We might not be able to forecast the demand accurately leading to over investment and losses",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 12": {
"description": "Calculates the Number of cars needed to fulfil CEO's expectation as 1400 Cars per year. Acceptable value is 1400",
"sources": "",
"justification": "As per the prompt, CEO's target revenue is INR 1400 Million for 2026, and with each car priced at INR 1 Million, the total number of cars that need to be produced is; = 1400/1 = 1400 cars.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
}
}
|
documents/1171/Task Data.csv
|
1,172
|
Consulting
|
My client, a large toy company, wants to develop a new product to compete with Lego, focusing on the US market in 2032. Could you estimate for them the Total Addressable Market (TAM) and Serviceable Addressable Market (SAM) for this project, alongside the total US population in 2024 and 2032? Please include all underlying calculations, rounding all output to the nearest whole number but not rounding any interim calculations. For the estimates, please use a bottom-up market sizing approach that starts with the total US population in 2024 from the attached dataset, including DC as a separate state, and assume that the historical CAGR on a state level from 2020 to 2024 will hold for 2024 to 2032. Please assume for simplicity that everyone in the US will be between the ages of 0 to 80 in 2032 and that the population will be evenly divided into four age segments (0-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80). The client has also asked that the TAM calculation assume that for each of these age segments, 25%, 20%, 10%, and 5% of people, respectively, will be interested in their genre of toy products, that each interested person on average will spend $50 on the product and that the client will capture 10% of that total market size in 2032 for its SAM. In addition to the above request, could you also highlight the risks associated with one of the aforementioned assumptions that you feel may be over-optimistic?
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "Calculates US population in 2032 as 358,710,351 (acceptable value is 358,710,351)",
"sources": "US Population Census by State.csv",
"justification": "From US Population Census by State.csv Find the CAGR based on 2020 through 2024 (columns B through F) for each state (column A). Then apply that CAGR for 8 years (2032 minus 2024) to find the population for that given state. Finally sum up all the states to find the population of 358,710,350.6 --> round to nearest whole number 358,710,351 As an example, Alabama CAGR is 0.61% [=(5,157,699/5,033,094)^(1/4)-1 = 0.006132639] based on Alabama 2020-2024 population. Thus, Alabama 2032 population is 2024 population (5,157,699) multiplied by (1 + 0.61%)^8",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "Calculates total interested people in this genre of toy products in US in 2032 as 53,806,553 (acceptable range is 53,806,552 to 53,806,554)",
"sources": "US Population Census by State.csv",
"justification": "Using the US population in 2032 from criterion ID 12412 (358,710,350.6 before final rounding), divide by four to get equal age segments: 358,710,350.6 / 4 = 89,677,587.65. Apply the interest rates 25%, 20%, 10%, and 5% to each segment and sum: (0.25 + 0.20 + 0.10 + 0.05) \u00d7 89,677,587.65 = 53,806,552.59. Round to the nearest whole number: 53,806,553.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1
]
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "Calculates TAM in US in 2032 as $2,690,327,629 (acceptable value of $2,690,327,629)",
"sources": "US Population Census by State.csv",
"justification": "Using the unrounded total interested people from criterion ID 12413 (53,806,552.59), multiply by $50 per person: 53,806,552.59 \u00d7 50 = $2,690,327,629.50. Round to the nearest whole dollar: $2,690,327,629.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
2
]
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "Calculates SAM in US in 2032 as $269,032,763 (acceptable value of $269,032,763)",
"sources": "US Population Census by State.csv",
"justification": "Using the unrounded TAM from criterion ID 12414 ($2,690,327,629.50), apply 10% capture: 0.10 \u00d7 $2,690,327,629.50 = $269,032,762.95. Round to the nearest whole dollar: $269,032,763.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
3
]
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "Highlights one or more of the following as a risk in the assumptions that may be over-optimistic: - Underestimation of how difficult it would be taking 10% market share from a dominant player like Lego - Sustainability of a $50 spend for toys in a potential downturn - The equal population distribution in the United States among the different age groups",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Many of the assumptions may be over-optimistic - $50 per person may be high if economic downturn in 2032 - 10% market share from a dominant player like Lego might be difficult - 25% of people between 0-20 interested in Lego-type products is high",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "Calculates the US population in 2024 as 340,110,988 (acceptable answer of 340,110,988)",
"sources": "US Population Census by State.csv",
"justification": "From US Population Census by State.csv Sum up the 2024 column (column F) to get 340,110,988 for the US population in 2024. No rounding is required given that the data is already in whole units.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
}
}
|
documents/1172/US Population Census by State.csv
|
1,384
|
Consulting
|
We want to optimize workforce deployment, compensation, and retention. Leadership wants a fact-based analysis to answer which employee segments drive the most business value, where pay and performance are misaligned, and which interventions will reduce attrition cost-effectively. Based on the dataset, answer for the following questions:
Can you answer which city contributes the highest total business value, and what share (%) of total business value do they represent? Also, which education level of employees shows the highest average quarterly rating and report the rating to two decimal places. What is the average salary difference between employees who left (Attrition = Yes) vs. those who stayed? Report the difference to the nearest whole number. If we rank existing employees by (Total Business Value / Salary), which employee had the lowest ratio (in 2 d.p)? Help me with one way to decrease attrition from the employer perspective please.
Note: All percentages should be rounded to the nearest whole number
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "Identifies Hyderabad as the city with the highest total business value",
"sources": "Employee_data.csv",
"justification": "Based on the Employee_data.csv, group each city (col D) to get the total business value (col G) for each city Intermediate outputs (not required in this criterion) Business value Share Hyderabad 1089696500 14% Pune 970071014 12% Delhi 1048523716 13% Mumbai 1065955320 14% Kolkata 953980505 12% Bangalore 847444794 11% Ahmedabad 980187749 12% Chennai 933582922 12% Hyderabad has the highest business value",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "Calculates share of total business value for Hyderabad as 14% (acceptable value is 14%)",
"sources": "Employee_data.csv",
"justification": "Based on criterion 1 and Employee_data.csv, group each city (col D) to get the total business value (col G) for each city Intermediate outputs Business value Share Hyderabad 1089696500 14% Pune 970071014 12% Delhi 1048523716 13% Mumbai 1065955320 14% Kolkata 953980505 12% Bangalore 847444794 11% Ahmedabad 980187749 12% Chennai 933582922 12% Hyderabad has the highest business value with share of 13.8% ~14% (rounded to nearest whole number as per prompt)",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1
]
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "Identifies Bachelor as the education with highest average quarterly rating",
"sources": "Employee_data.csv",
"justification": "Based on Employee_data.csv, group each education (col E) to get the average overall rating (col H) for each education Intermediate outputs (not needed for this criterion) PhD 2.439 Master 2.510 Bachelor 2.518 Bachelor has the highest average quarterly rating of ~2.518",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "Calculates average quarterly rating for education as 2.52 (acceptable value is 2.52)",
"sources": "Employee_data.csv",
"justification": "Based on criterion 3 and Employee_data.csv, group each education (col E) to get the average overall rating (col H) for each education Intermediate outputs PhD 2.439 Master 2.510 Bachelor 2.518 Bachelor has the highest average quarterly rating of ~2.518 ~2.52 (rounded to two decimal places as per prompt)",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
3
]
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "Calculates the average salary difference between employees who left vs. who stayed as -12959 (acceptable value is -12959)",
"sources": "Employee_data.csv",
"justification": "Based on Employee_data.csv, group each attrition type (col J) to get the average salary (col F) for each type of employee Intermediate outputs (not needed for this criterion) Yes 1153314.0 No 1166273.0 Difference -12959.0 The difference in average salary ~12,959 (rounded to nearest whole number as per prompt)",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "Identifies employee 1336 as the existing employee with the lowest ratio. (Acceptable value is 1336)",
"sources": "Employee_data.csv",
"justification": "Based on Employee_data.csv, find each existing employee's ratio using (Total Business Value / Salary). The employee with the lowest ratio is Emp_ID 1336, and the associated ratio is 0.334330706.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "Identifies employee 1336's ratio as 0.33. (Acceptable value is 0.33)",
"sources": "Employee_data.csv",
"justification": "Based on Employee_data.csv, find each existing employee's ratio using (Total Business Value / Salary). The employee with the lowest ratio is Emp_ID 1336, and the associated ratio is 0.334330706. (rounded to 0.33)",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "States one of the following as a way to decrease attrition from the employer's perspective: -offering better compensation -offering career growth -offering better work life balance -getting exit insights and continuous improvements",
"sources": "",
"justification": "A consultant would agree that the below are some ways to decrease attrition from the employer's perspective: -offering better compensation; such as ensuring competitive pay -offering career growth; such as investing in employees' learnings -offering better work life balance; such as offering more family days and flexible vacations -getting exit insights and continuous improvements; such as conducting exit interviews",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
}
}
|
documents/1384/Employee_data.csv
|
1,188
|
Consulting
|
Our insurance carrier partner has entered into a PoC agreement with Scribe, a vendor that is utilizing generative AI to assist claim managers with their outgoing DI claim letters. They just wrapped up their initial pilot and sent us this dataset to evaluate performance and plan for next steps before the upcoming PoC meeting. First, I’ll need the overall efficiency gain (average minutes saved and also percentage) when automated drafting was utilized. Next, compare this to the vendor’s promised efficiency gain percentage of at least 25%.
Now, I’ll need you to quantify how the AI is affecting reviewer satisfaction. I want to see the average reviewer satisfaction for claims where AI was used for drafting and when it was not used reported separately. Compare this then to the vendor’s promise of a satisfaction level of no less than 80%. Lastly, I need your strategic recommendation on the next step our client should propose in next week’s PoC review with the vendor.
Note: I'd like all calculations reported to two decimal points.
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "Calculates the average review time spent on claims without AI Drafting as 32.19 minutes. (Acceptable range is 32.09 minutes to 32.29 minutes)",
"sources": "Automated_Letter_Generation_Pilot.csv",
"justification": "Using the Automated_Letter_Generation_Pilot.csv dataset, we identify that there are 720 claims (rows). We will be focusing on Column C AI_Drafted and Column F Reviewer_Time_Minutes. First we filter the dataset for AI_Drafted = FALSE to determine the time spent on claims without the AI drafting. This results in 261 claims. We then total the minutes spent from Column F for these 261 rows and get 8,402.20 total no AI draft reviewer minutes. We then must: Total no AI Draft reviewer minutes / total number of claims without AI Drafting 8,402.20/261 = 32.1946 Rounded to 32.19 minutes per the prompt",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "Calculates the average review time spent on claims with AI Drafting as 23.94 minutes. (Acceptable range is 23.90 minutes to 23.98 minutes)",
"sources": "Automated_Letter_Generation_Pilot.csv",
"justification": "Next, we filter the dataset for AI_Drafted = TRUE and there are 459 rows. We then total the minutes spent from Column F for these 459 rows and get 10,986.40 total reviewer minutes on claims with AI Drafting. We then must: Total reviewer time minutes on claims with AI Drafting / total number of claims with AI Drafting 10,986.40/459 = 23.9355 Rounded to 23.94 minutes per the prompt.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "Calculates the overall efficiency gain when AI drafted was utilized as 8.25 minutes. (Acceptable range is 8.20 minutes to 8.30 minutes)",
"sources": "Automated_Letter_Generation_Pilot.csv",
"justification": "From Criterion 11866 we have average reviewer time spent without using the AI Drafting and in Criterion 11867 we have the average reviewer time spent when we do use the AI Drafting. We must: average reviewer time spent without using the AI Drafting - average reviewer time spent when we do use the AI Drafting 32.19 minutes - 23.94 minutes = 8.25 minutes Already rounded to two decimal points as per the prompt.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1,
2
]
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "Calculates the efficiency gain percentage as 25.63%. (Acceptable range is 25.53% to 25.63%)",
"sources": "Automated_Letter_Generation_Pilot.csv",
"justification": "Given the calculations already performed in Criterion IDs 11866, 11867 and 11868, we now must calculate the percentage efficiency gain. ((average reviewer time spent without using the AI Drafting - average reviewer time spent when we do use the AI Drafting) / average reviewer time spent without using the AI Drafting) x 100 ((32.19 minutes - 23.94 minutes) / 32.19 minutes) x 100 = 25.6290 Rounded to 25.63% per the prompt.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
3,
1
]
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "Identifies that the efficiency gain percentage is higher than the benchmark.",
"sources": "Automated_Letter_Generation_Pilot.csv",
"justification": "Per the prompt, the vendor benchmark is at least 25.00% efficiency gain. Per Criterion ID 11869, we have established the efficiency gain to be 25.63%. As 25.63%>25.00%, the efficiency gain percentage is higher than the benchmark.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
4
]
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "Calculates the average reviewer satisfaction for claims where AI was used for drafting as 80.55. (Acceptable range is 80.45 to 80.65)",
"sources": "Automated_Letter_Generation_Pilot.csv",
"justification": "Now we focus on Column C AI_Drafted and Column M Reviewer_Satisfaction_Score We know there are 459 rows where AI_Drafted = TRUE, indicating 459 claims using the AI drafting. We then total these claims in Column M and get a total reviewer satisfaction score on claims with AI Drafting of 36,974.20. We then must: Total reviewer satisfaction score of AI Draft claims / Total number of AI Draft claims 36,974.20 / 459 = 80.5538 Rounded to average score of 80.55 per the prompt.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "Calculates the average reviewer satisfaction for claims where AI was not used for drafting as 79.88. (Acceptable range is 79.78 to 79.98)",
"sources": "Automated_Letter_Generation_Pilot.csv",
"justification": "Again, we return to Column C AI_Drafted and Column M Reviewer_Satisfaction_Score We know there are 261 rows where AI_Drafted = FALSE, indicating there are 261 claims that did not use the AI Drafting. We then total these claims in Column M and get a total reviewer satisfaction score on claims that did not use AI drafting of 20,847.90. We then must: total reviewer satisfaction score of non-AI Draft claims / Total number of non-AI Draft claims 20,847.90 / 261 = 79.8770 Rounded to average score of 79.88 per the prompt",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "Identifies the reviewer satisfaction for claims where AI was used is higher than the benchmark.",
"sources": "Automated_Letter_Generation_Pilot.csv,",
"justification": "From Criterion 11871, the average reviewer satisfaction for claims where AI was used for drafting as 80.55. Per the prompt, the benchmark from the vendor was an average reviewer satisfaction score of at least 80.00. 80.55 > 80.00 As such, the reviewer satisfaction for claims where AI was used is higher than the benchmark.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
6
]
},
"criterion 9": {
"description": "Provides a strategic recommendation that includes one of the following: - Suggests a discussion for full rollout for high volume, low risk communications - Suggests entering into a partnership agreement - Suggests expanding the pilot into additional lines of business - Suggests benchmarking ROI to quantify labor savings - Suggests the creation of a reviewer feedback loop",
"sources": "",
"justification": "- Suggests a discussion for full rollout for high volume, low risk communications These are the least 'risky' claim communications and since the vendor performed positively on both benchmarks, it is suggested to begin discussions to scale. - Suggests entering into a partnership agreement Simply, they performed positive on both benchmarks and this is a simply response that would be justified. - Suggests expanding the pilot into additional lines of business As the prompt indicates the pilot was for the DI business, expanding to other lines of business in the portfolio (i.e. dental, accident, etc.) would be a great next step. - Suggests benchmarking ROI to quantify labor savings This is to create internal benchmarks to track ROI and justify the vendor use into actual dollars or manpower saved. - Suggests the creation of a reviewer feedback loop Doing so would develop data that would help the vendor continue to train and calibrate their model to the client's needs and would increase performance even further above the benchmarks.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
4,
8
]
}
}
|
documents/1188/Automated_Letter_Generation_Pilot.csv
|
1,191
|
Consulting
|
A European supermarket chain is considering expanding into Africa and wants your help choosing the target countries using 2022 data. Could you help me with the following please?
First, determine cultural fit: Calculate and list the cultural fit scores for the countries we have household data on, determined by looking, for each country, at the similarity score of language, brands, diet, religion, climate and holidays, multiplying those scores by their weights, and summing them up. The weights are determined as follows: If less than 30% of African countries have that characteristic in common with Europe, assign a weight of 3. If 30% to 60% (inclusive) of African countries have that characteristic in common with Europe, assign a weight of 2. Otherwise, assign a weight of 1.
To come up with the short list of countries to analyze, include the top scoring country/countries until their combined GDP represents at least a third of the GDP of the regions for to which the countries being analyzed belong to. Just let me know the country/countries that were removed from the original list.
For the countries still standing, recommend the top 2 countries based on TAM (total grocery market size) for further market analysis.
Round every number to the nearest integer.
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "Calculates a cultural fit score of 11 for Namibia (acceptable value is 11)",
"sources": "cultural.csv, spend.pdf",
"justification": "There are 54 countries on the list for Africa. Here's the characteristic breakdown: Holidays: there are 35 countries in Africa with same holidays as Europe, giving it 35/54=65% and a weight of 1 Religion: there are 34 countries in Africa with same majority religion as Europe, giving it 34/54=63% and a weight of 1 Climate: there are 8 countries in Africa with similar climate to Europe, giving it 8/54=15% and a weight of 3 Diet: there are 9 countries in Africa with similar diet to Europe, giving it 9/54=17% and a weight of 3 Language: there are 49 countries in Africa with European languages, giving it 49/54=91% and a weight of 1 Grocery brands: there are 22 countries in Africa with same grocery brands as Europe, giving it 22/54=41% and a weight of 2 Hence; holidays = weight of 1, religion = weight of 1, climate = weight of 3, diet = weight of 3, language = weight of 1, grocery brands = weight of 2 Given that Namibia has similar/same holidays, religion, climate, diet, language and grocery brands, its cultural fit score is calculated as 1+1+3+3+1+2=11",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "Calculates a cultural fit score of 11 for Sudan (acceptable value is 11)",
"sources": "cultural.csv, spend.pdf",
"justification": "There are 54 countries on the list for Africa. Here's the characteristic breakdown: Holidays: there are 35 countries in Africa with same holidays as Europe, giving it 35/54=65% and a weight of 1 Religion: there are 34 countries in Africa with same majority religion as Europe, giving it 34/54=63% and a weight of 1 Climate: there are 8 countries in Africa with similar climate to Europe, giving it 8/54=15% and a weight of 3 Diet: there are 9 countries in Africa with similar diet to Europe, giving it 9/54=17% and a weight of 3 Language: there are 49 countries in Africa with European languages, giving it 49/54=91% and a weight of 1 Grocery brands: there are 22 countries in Africa with same grocery brands as Europe, giving it 22/54=41% and a weight of 2 Hence; holidays = weight of 1, religion = weight of 1, climate = weight of 3, diet = weight of 3, language = weight of 1, grocery brands = weight of 2 Given that Sudan has similar/same holidays, religion, climate, diet, language and grocery brands, its cultural fit score is calculated as 1+1+3+3+1+2=11",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "Calculates a cultural fit score of 10 for South Africa (acceptable value is 10)",
"sources": "cultural.csv, spend.pdf",
"justification": "There are 54 countries on the list for Africa. Here's the characteristic breakdown: Holidays: there are 35 countries in Africa with same holidays as Europe, giving it 35/54=65% and a weight of 1 Religion: there are 34 countries in Africa with same majority religion as Europe, giving it 34/54=63% and a weight of 1 Climate: there are 8 countries in Africa with similar climate to Europe, giving it 8/54=15% and a weight of 3 Diet: there are 9 countries in Africa with similar diet to Europe, giving it 9/54=17% and a weight of 3 Language: there are 49 countries in Africa with European languages, giving it 49/54=91% and a weight of 1 Grocery brands: there are 22 countries in Africa with same grocery brands as Europe, giving it 22/54=41% and a weight of 2 Hence; holidays = weight of 1, religion = weight of 1, climate = weight of 3, diet = weight of 3, language = weight of 1, grocery brands = weight of 2 Given that South Africa has similar/same religion, climate, diet, language and grocery brands, its cultural fit score is calculated as 1+3+3+1+2=10",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "Calculates a cultural fit score of 3 for Angola (acceptable value is 3)",
"sources": "cultural.csv, spend.pdf",
"justification": "There are 54 countries on the list for Africa. Here's the characteristic breakdown: Holidays: there are 35 countries in Africa with same holidays as Europe, giving it 35/54=65% and a weight of 1 Religion: there are 34 countries in Africa with same majority religion as Europe, giving it 34/54=63% and a weight of 1 Climate: there are 8 countries in Africa with similar climate to Europe, giving it 8/54=15% and a weight of 3 Diet: there are 9 countries in Africa with similar diet to Europe, giving it 9/54=17% and a weight of 3 Language: there are 49 countries in Africa with European languages, giving it 49/54=91% and a weight of 1 Grocery brands: there are 22 countries in Africa with same grocery brands as Europe, giving it 22/54=41% and a weight of 2 Hence; holidays = weight of 1, religion = weight of 1, climate = weight of 3, diet = weight of 3, language = weight of 1, grocery brands = weight of 2 Given that Angola has similar/same holidays, language and religion, its cultural fit score is calculated as 1+1+1=3",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "Calculates a cultural fit score of 9 for Algeria (acceptable value is 9)",
"sources": "cultural.csv, spend.pdf",
"justification": "There are 54 countries on the list for Africa. Here's the characteristic breakdown: Holidays: there are 35 countries in Africa with same holidays as Europe, giving it 35/54=65% and a weight of 1 Religion: there are 34 countries in Africa with same majority religion as Europe, giving it 34/54=63% and a weight of 1 Climate: there are 8 countries in Africa with similar climate to Europe, giving it 8/54=15% and a weight of 3 Diet: there are 9 countries in Africa with similar diet to Europe, giving it 9/54=17% and a weight of 3 Language: there are 49 countries in Africa with European languages, giving it 49/54=91% and a weight of 1 Grocery brands: there are 22 countries in Africa with same grocery brands as Europe, giving it 22/54=41% and a weight of 2 Hence; holidays = weight of 1, religion = weight of 1, climate = weight of 3, diet = weight of 3, language = weight of 1, grocery brands = weight of 2 Given that Algeria has similar/same climate, diet, language and grocery brands, its cultural fit score is calculated as 3+3+1+2=9",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "Calculates a cultural fit score of 2 for Ethiopia (acceptable value is 2)",
"sources": "cultural.csv, spend.pdf",
"justification": "There are 54 countries on the list for Africa. Here's the characteristic breakdown: Holidays: there are 35 countries in Africa with same holidays as Europe, giving it 35/54=65% and a weight of 1 Religion: there are 34 countries in Africa with same majority religion as Europe, giving it 34/54=63% and a weight of 1 Climate: there are 8 countries in Africa with similar climate to Europe, giving it 8/54=15% and a weight of 3 Diet: there are 9 countries in Africa with similar diet to Europe, giving it 9/54=17% and a weight of 3 Language: there are 49 countries in Africa with European languages, giving it 49/54=91% and a weight of 1 Grocery brands: there are 22 countries in Africa with same grocery brands as Europe, giving it 22/54=41% and a weight of 2 Hence; holidays = weight of 1, religion = weight of 1, climate = weight of 3, diet = weight of 3, language = weight of 1, grocery brands = weight of 2 Given that Ethiopia has similar/same holidays and religion, its cultural fit score is calculated as 1+1=2",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "Calculates the total GDP for 2022 for the regions being analyzed as 2,167,077,928,575 (acceptable range is 2,167,07,928,000 to 2,167,07,929,000)",
"sources": "spend.pdf",
"justification": "The analyzed countries, from file spend, are Ethiopia, Algeria, Angola, South Africa, Namibia and Sudan. According to Data_Africa, Ethiopia is East Africa, Algeria and Sudan are North Africa, South Africa and Namibia are South Africa and Angola is Central Africa. This means that West Africa is not included. Looking at the sum of GDPs in 2022 per region with the formula =SUMIFS(F:F,D:D,[region]), replacing [region] with region names, we get East Africa 501,661,786,511.00 South Africa 446,237,386,534.00 North Africa 946,922,526,763.00 West Africa 700,914,854,368.00 Central Africa 272,256,228,766.70 Summing up all the relevant ones, we get 501,661,786,511.00 + 446,237,386,534.00 + 946,922,526,763.00 + 272,256,228,766.70 = 2,167,077,928,574.70, or 2,167,077,928,575 rounded to the nearest integer",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "Lists Ethiopia as a country removed in the cultural fit step",
"sources": "Data_Africa.csv",
"justification": "The country rankings are, from criteria 1-6, Sudan/Namibia, South Africa, Algeria, Angola, Ethiopia. We get their GDPs from Data_Africa and calculate their percent and running total over the GDP of the analyzed regions (2,167,077,928,575 from criterion 7) to determine who to eliminate: Country GDP % of analyzed regions Running total Sudan 51,662,241,775.00 2.4% 2.4% Namibia 12,607,436,976.00 0.6% 3.0% South Africa 405,870,000,000.00 18.7% 21.7% Algeria 191,913,000,000.00 8.9% 30.6% Angola 106,714,000,000.00 4.9% 35.5% Ethiopia 126,783,000,000.00 5.9% 41.3% % of analyzed region = GDP 21,167,077,928,575. We need at least 1/3 per the prompt, or 33.3%. For that, we need to include Algeria and Angola. Thus, only Ethiopia is eliminated",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7
]
},
"criterion 9": {
"description": "Does not remove any country outside of Ethiopia in the cultural fit step",
"sources": "Data_Africa.csv",
"justification": "The country rankings are, from criteria 1-6, Sudan/Namibia, South Africa, Algeria, Angola, Ethiopia. We get their GDPs from Data_Africa and calculate their percent and running total over the GDP of the analyzed regions (2,167,077,928,575 from criterion 7) to determine who to eliminate: Country GDP % of analyzed regions Running total Sudan 51,662,241,775.00 2.4% 2.4% Namibia 12,607,436,976.00 0.6% 3.0% South Africa 405,870,000,000.00 18.7% 21.7% Algeria 191,913,000,000.00 8.9% 30.6% Angola 106,714,000,000.00 4.9% 35.5% Ethiopia 126,783,000,000.00 5.9% 41.3% % of analyzed region = GDP/21,167,077,928,575. We need at least 1/3 per the prompt, or 33.3%. Thus, only Ethiopia is eliminated",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8
]
},
"criterion 10": {
"description": "Calculates South Africa' TAM for 2022 as 135,487,354,500 (acceptable value is 135,487,354,500)",
"sources": "spend.pdf, Data_Africa.csv",
"justification": "(Formula: (population/ people in a household) * average dollars spent per house hold in groceries) for 2022 = 60,216,602/4*9000",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
9
]
},
"criterion 11": {
"description": "Calculates Namibia's TAM for 2022 as 65,847,950,000 (acceptable value is 65,847,950,000)",
"sources": "spend.pdf, Data_Africa.csv",
"justification": "(Formula: (population/ people in a household) * average dollars spent per house hold in groceries) for 2022 = 2,633,918/4*100000",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
9
]
},
"criterion 12": {
"description": "Calculates Angola's TAM for 2022 as 17,255,757,000 (acceptable value is 17,255,757,000)",
"sources": "spend.pdf, Data_Africa.csv",
"justification": "(Formula: (population/ people in a household) * average dollars spent per house hold in groceries) for 2022 = 34,511,514.00/2*1000",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
9
]
},
"criterion 13": {
"description": "Calculates Sudan's TAM for 2022 as 2,543,931,506 (acceptable value is 2,543,931,506)",
"sources": "spend.pdf, Data_Africa.csv",
"justification": "(Formula: (population/ people in a household) * average dollars spent per house hold in groceries) for 2022 = 45,225,449/8*450",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
9
]
},
"criterion 14": {
"description": "Calculates Algeria's TAM for 2022 as 752,285,317 (acceptable value is 752,285,317)",
"sources": "spend.pdf, Data_Africa.csv",
"justification": "(Formula: (population/ people in a household) * average dollars spent per house hold in groceries) for 2022 = 45,137,119/6*100",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
9
]
},
"criterion 15": {
"description": "Recommends South Africa as a country for further analysis",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Compare south africa TAM with other TAMs calculated and get to the conclusion that is the highest: Sudan 2,543,931,506.25 Algeria 752,285,316.67 Namibia 65,847,950,000.00 South Africa 135,487,354,500.00 Angola 17,255,757,000.00",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
10,
11,
12,
13,
14
]
},
"criterion 16": {
"description": "Recommends Namibia as a country for further analysis",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Compare Namibia's TAM with other TAMs calculated and get to the conclusion that is the second highest: Sudan 2,543,931,506.25 Algeria 752,285,316.67 Namibia 65,847,950,000.00 South Africa 135,487,354,500.00 Angola 17,255,757,000.00",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
10,
11,
12,
13,
14
]
}
}
|
documents/1191/Data_Africa.csv
documents/1191/cultural (1).csv
documents/1191/spend.pdf
|
1,192
|
Consulting
|
The client is a big food delivery app that is analyzing merchant loyalty and performance in the Mexican food industry. As part of their merchant strategy, they want to classify the merchants in their database based on their size (small, medium, big) and based on their loyalty (low, average, high). The attached file provides each merchant's revenue through our app and an estimate of our share of wallet within their total delivery revenue.
To determine which category of size each merchant belongs to, we must use their estimated total delivery revenue. Merchants up to and including the 33rd percentile of total delivery revenue are considered small, and up to and including the 67th percentile are considered medium. The rest is big. State the cutoff revenues used rounded to the nearest cent and how many merchants are in each group.
For the loyalty categorization, merchants whose share of wallets are less than or equal to the 33rd percentile (unweighted, every merchant has the same weight) are considered low, and merchants whose share of wallets are less than or equal the 67th percentile are considered average. The rest is high. State the cutoff shares of wallet used with no decimal places and how many merchants are in each group.
The client considers balance an important element of the classification. It will consider a group balanced if it contains between 10% and 13% of the merchants (inclusive). Define a group as a pairing of a loyalty bucket with a size bucket. How many groups, if any, are unbalanced? If there is at least one, propose one change in the cutoffs used to make the groups balanced, keeping in mind that the cutoffs must apply to all merchants (i.e. the cutoff from low to average loyalty has to be the same for small, medium and big businesses). If every group is balanced, state that no cutoff changes are necessary.
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "States that the cutoff total delivery revenue between the Small and Medium size categories is $184,702.48 (acceptable range is 183,882.60 to 185,400.00)",
"sources": "Restaurant SOW Estimates.csv",
"justification": "First, create a new column in the file, in column D, where we calculate total revenue. The formula is =B2/C2*100. Then, apply the formula =PERCENTILE.INC(D2:D1240,0.33), which will give you 184,702.48. The lower bound is the exact value of the last number to belong in the small group and the upper bound is a few cents before the first to be in the medium, since it should not be included",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "States that the cutoff total delivery revenue between the Medium and Big size categories is $510,161.45 (acceptable range is 510,094.80 to 510,239.00)",
"sources": "Restaurant SOW Estimates.csv",
"justification": "First, create a new column in the file, in column D, where we calculate total revenue. The formula is =B2/C2*100. Then, apply the formula =PERCENTILE.INC(D2:D1240,0.67), which will give you 510,161.45. The lower bound is the exact value of the last number to belong in the medium group and the upper bound is a few cents before the first to be in the big, since it should not be included",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "Identifies that 409 merchants are categorized as Small in size (acceptable value is 409)",
"sources": "Restaurant SOW Estimates.csv",
"justification": "First, create a new column in the file, in column D, where we calculate total revenue. The formula is =B2/C2*100. Then, using the result from criterion 12359 of a cutoff of 184,702.48, check how many merchants have a total delivery revenue below or equal to that amount by using the formula =COUNTIFS(D:D,'<=184702.48'), which will give you 409",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1
]
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "Identifies that 421 merchants are categorized as Medium in size (acceptable value is 421)",
"sources": "Restaurant SOW Estimates.csv",
"justification": "First, create a new column in the file, in column D, where we calculate total revenue. The formula is =B2/C2*100. Then, using the result from criteria 12359 of a cutoff of 184,702.48 and 12384 of a cutoff of 510,161.45, check how many merchants have a total delivery revenue above the lower bound and below the upper bound by using the formula =COUNTIFS(D:D,'>184702.48',D:D,'<=510161.45'), which will give you 421",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1,
2
]
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "Identifies that 409 merchants are categorized as Big in size (acceptable value is 409)",
"sources": "Restaurant SOW Estimates.csv",
"justification": "First, create a new column in the file, in column D, where we calculate total revenue. The formula is =B2/C2*100. Then, using the result from criterion 12384 of a cutoff of 510.161.45, check how many merchants have a total delivery revenue greater than that amount by using the formula =COUNTIFS(D:D,'>510161.45'), which will give you 409",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
2
]
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "States that the cutoff share of wallet between the Low and Average loyalty categories is 40% (acceptable value is 40%)",
"sources": "Restaurant SOW Estimates.csv",
"justification": "Apply the formula =PERCENTILE.INC(C2:C1240,0.33), which will give you 40. There is no range since both the merchants before and after the cutoff have the same share of wallet",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "States that the cutoff share of wallet between the Average and High loyalty categories is 65% (acceptable value is 65%)",
"sources": "Restaurant SOW Estimates.csv",
"justification": "Apply the formula =PERCENTILE.INC(C2:C1240,0.67), which will give you 65. There is no range since both the merchants before and after the cutoff have the same share of wallet",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "Identifies that 454 merchants are categorized as Low in loyalty (acceptable value is 454)",
"sources": "Restaurant SOW Estimates.csv",
"justification": "Using the result from criterion 12394 of a cutoff of 40, check how many merchants have a share of wallet below or equal to that amount by using the formula =COUNTIFS(C:C,'<=40'), which will give you 454",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
6
]
},
"criterion 9": {
"description": "Identifies that 380 merchants are categorized as Average in loyalty (acceptable value is 380)",
"sources": "Restaurant SOW Estimates.csv",
"justification": "Using the results from criteria 12394 of a cutoff of 40 and 12395 of a cutoff of 65, check how many merchants have a share of wallet in-between these values (excluding the lower bound and including the upper bound) by using the formula =COUNTIFS(C:C,'>40',C:C,'<=65'), which will give you 380",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
6,
7
]
},
"criterion 10": {
"description": "Identifies that 405 merchants are categorized as High in loyalty (acceptable value is 405)",
"sources": "Restaurant SOW Estimates.csv",
"justification": "Using the results from criterion 12395 of a cutoff of 65, check how many merchants have a share of wallet above that by using the formula =COUNTIFS(C:C,'>65'), which will give you 405",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
7
]
},
"criterion 11": {
"description": "States that 2 groups are unbalanced (acceptable value is 2)",
"sources": "Restaurant SOW Estimates.csv",
"justification": "First, create a new column in the file, in column D, where we calculate total revenue. The formula is =B2/C2*100. Then, we will use the cutoffs to investigate every pairing. The size cutoffs are, from criterion 12359, 184,702.48 and from criterion 12384, 510,161.45. The loyalty cutoffs are, from criterion 12394, 40%, and from criterion 12395, 65%. We then inspect each group: Small size-Low loyalty: =COUNTIFS(D:D,'<=184702.48',C:C,'<=40') = 144 Small size-Average loyalty: =COUNTIFS(D:D,'<=184702.48',C:C,'>40',C:C,'<=65') = 132 Small size-High loyalty: =COUNTIFS(D:D,'<=184702.48',C:C,'>65') = 133 Medium size-Low loyalty: =COUNTIFS(D:D,'>184702.48',D:D,'<=510161.45',C:C,'<=40') = 140 Medium size-Average loyalty: =COUNTIFS(D:D,'>184702.48',D:D,'<=510161.45',C:C,'>40',C:C,'<=65') = 146 Medium size-High loyalty: =COUNTIFS(D:D,'>184702.48',D:D,'<=510161.45',C:C,'>65') = 135 Big size-Low loyalty: =COUNTIFS(D:D,'>510161.45',C:C,'<=40') = 170. Big size-Average loyalty: =COUNTIFS(D:D,'>510161.45',C:C,'>40',C:C,'<=65') = 102 Big size-High loyalty: =COUNTIFS(D:D,'>510161.45',C:C,'>65') = 137 From =Count(C:C) we know there are 1239 total merchants. The thresholds are 10% and 13%. 10%*1239 = 123.9. 13%*1239 = 161.07. So, to be balanced, all number must be between 124 and 161 (inclusive). We see that 2, big size-low loyalty and big size-medium loyalty, are not",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1,
2,
6,
7,
12,
13
]
},
"criterion 12": {
"description": "States that the group of Big size-Low loyalty merchants is unbalanced",
"sources": "Restaurant SOW Estimates.csv",
"justification": "First, create a new column in the file, in column D, where we calculate total revenue. The formula is =B2/C2*100. Then, using the result from criterion 12384 of a cutoff of 510.161.45 and from criterion 12394 of a cutoff of 40, check how many merchants fall in the Big size - Low loyalty group by using the formula =COUNTIFS(D:D,'>510161.45',C:C,'<=40'), which will give you 170. Using =COUNT(C:C) we get a total of 1239. 170/239 = 13.7%, which is above the balance threshold of 13% given by the prompt, so it is unbalanced",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
2,
6
]
},
"criterion 13": {
"description": "States that the group of Big size-Average loyalty merchants is unbalanced",
"sources": "Restaurant SOW Estimates.csv",
"justification": "First, create a new column in the file, in column D, where we calculate total revenue. The formula is =B2/C2*100. Then, using the result from criterion 12384 of a cutoff of 510.161.45 and from criteria 12394 and 12395 of cutoffs of 40 and 65, check how many merchants fall in the Big size - Average loyalty group by using the formula =COUNTIFS(D:D,'>510161.45',C:C,'>40',C:C,'<=65'), which will give you 102. Using =COUNT(C:C) we get a total of 1239. 102/239 = 8.2%, which is below the balance threshold of 10% given by the prompt, so it is unbalanced",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
2,
6,
7
]
},
"criterion 14": {
"description": "Proposes that the cutoff share of wallet between Low loyalty and Average loyalty gets moved to 35% (acceptable value is 35%)",
"sources": "Restaurant SOW Estimates.csv",
"justification": "The unbalance happens because the 33rd percentile cutoff is at position 409, and the first merchant with 40% is at position 406. This puts 40% in the 33rd percentile, but since we must include up to and equal to the cutoff, all 48 players with estimated 40% SoW end up in the low category. The solution is then to move it down to 35%. A more mathematical reasoning is that If we move the threshold from Medium to Big companies, both the low-big and average-big groups will move in the same direction (if we raise the cutoff both decrease, if we lower the cutoff both increase). But we need each to in a different direction. Therefore, the only option we can consider is to move the low-to average threshold down, to move some merchants from low to average. Then, we have to check if this shift affects the other buckets to check if it is valid. Results when the cutoff is moved down to 35% SoW (skipping low loyalty, because the group is unaffected by this change): Small size-Low loyalty: =COUNTIFS(D:D,'<=184702.48',C:C,'<=35') = 126 Small size-Average loyalty: =COUNTIFS(D:D,'<=184702.48',C:C,'>35',C:C,'<=65') = 150 Medium size-Low loyalty: =COUNTIFS(D:D,'>184702.48',D:D,'<=510161.45',C:C,'<=35') = 133 Medium size-Average loyalty: =COUNTIFS(D:D,'>184702.48',D:D,'<=510161.45',C:C,'>35',C:C,'<=65') = 153 Big size-Low loyalty: =COUNTIFS(D:D,'>510161.45',C:C,'<=35') = 147 Big size-Average loyalty: =COUNTIFS(D:D,'>510161.45',C:C,'>35',C:C,'<=65') = 125. From =Count(C:C) we know there are 1239 total merchants. The thresholds are 10% and 13%. 10%*1239 = 123.9. 13%*1239 = 161.07. So, to be balanced, all number must be between 124 and 161 (inclusive), and they all are. The final check we must do is if a further descent will still remain balanced. The next value below 35% is 30%. Just by checking the first one, we see that Small size-Low loyalty: =COUNTIFS(D:D,'<=184702.48',C:C,'<=30') = 101, which falls outside of the range for balance. Therefore this option doesn't work and moving the threshold down to 35% is the only valid option",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
11,
1,
2,
6,
7
]
}
}
|
documents/1192/Restaurant SOW Estimates.csv
|
1,242
|
Consulting
|
The CHRO of a multinational investment bank wants to determine which employee grade levels (M1, M2, M3, M4, M5) give them the best returns based on the enclosed dataset. Can you calculate the weighted average of the ratio of average lifetime revenue to average lifetime pay for every grade, assuming Total Pay in the dataset represents the constant annual pay per employee and each employee’s lifetime should be defined as the duration since their date of joining to 10/25/2025? Can you identify the top two grades with the best ratios? What will be the additional cost in terms of total annual pay if we increase the number of employees for these two grades by 20%, assuming these employees will receive the average annual pay for their grades? Given the results of the analysis, which employee grade levels would you recommend the bank focus on for its expansion plans? Please include all underlying calculations, do not round interim calculations, round all ratio outputs to two decimal places and round dollar and employee outputs to the nearest whole number.
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "Calculates the ratio of Average Lifetime Revenue to Average Lifetime Pay for grade M1 as 2.73 (acceptable value is 2.73)",
"sources": "Data.csv",
"justification": "From the dataset data.csv attached, first calculate Lifetime Pay per row (or employee). To do this, we determine the total lifetime (in years) for each employee by finding the difference between each employee's Date of Joining (column B) and 10/25/2025 (per prompt). We can determine this using a formula like this: =DATEDIF(B2,$O$1,'d')/365 Next, we multiply this tenure in years by the Total Pay (column J) which is also in years, per prompt. We can determine the Lifetime Pay using a formula like this, assuming the tenure in years is created in column M: =M2*J2 To determine the weighted average of the ratio of average lifetime revenue to average lifetime pay for every grade, create a pivot table where employee Grade (column C) is the rows and the values are sum of Lifetime Revenue (column L) and sum of the newly calculated Total Pay (column J). The ratio is the simple division of total lifetime revenue by total lifetime pay for each grade. Output as follows: Row Labels Sum of Lifetime Revenue Sum of Lifetime Pay Unrounded Ratio Rounded Ratio M1 $4,727,876,336 $1,734,938,806 2.725096886 2.73 M2 $3,889,169,727 $1,196,019,801 3.251760316 3.25 M3 $5,473,528,658 $1,788,044,299 3.061181795 3.06 M4 $288,497,996 $101,777,314 2.834600214 2.83 M5 $519,250,542 $299,058,552 1.736283877 1.74 For M1, the ratio = 2.725096886= 2.73 rounded to two decimal places per prompt",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "Calculates the ratio of Average Lifetime Revenue to Average Lifetime Pay for grade M2 as 3.25 (acceptable value is 3.25)",
"sources": "Data.csv",
"justification": "From the dataset data.csv attached, first calculate Lifetime Pay per row (or employee). To do this, we determine the total lifetime (in years) for each employee by finding the difference between each employee's Date of Joining (column B) and 10/25/2025 (per prompt). We can determine this using a formula like this: =DATEDIF(B2,$O$1,'d')/365 Next, we multiply this tenure in years by the Total Pay (column J) which is also in years, per prompt. We can determine the Lifetime Pay using a formula like this, assuming the tenure in years is created in column M: =M2*J2 To determine the weighted average of the ratio of average lifetime revenue to average lifetime pay for every grade, create a pivot table where employee Grade (column C) is the rows and the values are sum of Lifetime Revenue (column L) and sum of the newly calculated Total Pay (column J). The ratio is the simple division of total lifetime revenue by total lifetime pay for each grade. Output as follows: Row Labels Sum of Lifetime Revenue Sum of Lifetime Pay Unrounded Ratio Rounded Ratio M1 $4,727,876,336 $1,734,938,806 2.725096886 2.73 M2 $3,889,169,727 $1,196,019,801 3.251760316 3.25 M3 $5,473,528,658 $1,788,044,299 3.061181795 3.06 M4 $288,497,996 $101,777,314 2.834600214 2.83 M5 $519,250,542 $299,058,552 1.736283877 1.74 For M2, the ratio = 3.251760316= 3.25 rounded to two decimal places per prompt",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "Calculates the ratio of Average Lifetime Revenue to Average Lifetime Pay for grade M3 as 3.06 (acceptable value is 3.06)",
"sources": "Data.csv",
"justification": "From the dataset data.csv attached, first calculate Lifetime Pay per row (or employee). To do this, we determine the total lifetime (in years) for each employee by finding the difference between each employee's Date of Joining (column B) and 10/25/2025 (per prompt). We can determine this using a formula like this: =DATEDIF(B2,$O$1,'d')/365 Next, we multiply this tenure in years by the Total Pay (column J) which is also in years, per prompt. We can determine the Lifetime Pay using a formula like this, assuming the tenure in years is created in column M: =M2*J2 To determine the weighted average of the ratio of average lifetime revenue to average lifetime pay for every grade, create a pivot table where employee Grade (column C) is the rows and the values are sum of Lifetime Revenue (column L) and sum of the newly calculated Total Pay (column J). The ratio is the simple division of total lifetime revenue by total lifetime pay for each grade. Output as follows: Row Labels Sum of Lifetime Revenue Sum of Lifetime Pay Unrounded Ratio Rounded Ratio M1 $4,727,876,336 $1,734,938,806 2.725096886 2.73 M2 $3,889,169,727 $1,196,019,801 3.251760316 3.25 M3 $5,473,528,658 $1,788,044,299 3.061181795 3.06 M4 $288,497,996 $101,777,314 2.834600214 2.83 M5 $519,250,542 $299,058,552 1.736283877 1.74 For M3, the ratio = 3.061181795= 3.06 rounded to two decimal places per prompt",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "Calculates the ratio of Average Lifetime Revenue to Average Lifetime Pay for grade M4 as 2.83 (acceptable value is 2.83)",
"sources": "Data.csv",
"justification": "From the dataset data.csv attached, first calculate Lifetime Pay per row (or employee). To do this, we determine the total lifetime (in years) for each employee by finding the difference between each employee's Date of Joining (column B) and 10/25/2025 (per prompt). We can determine this using a formula like this: =DATEDIF(B2,$O$1,'d')/365 Next, we multiply this tenure in years by the Total Pay (column J) which is also in years, per prompt. We can determine the Lifetime Pay using a formula like this, assuming the tenure in years is created in column M: =M2*J2 To determine the weighted average of the ratio of average lifetime revenue to average lifetime pay for every grade, create a pivot table where employee Grade (column C) is the rows and the values are sum of Lifetime Revenue (column L) and sum of the newly calculated Total Pay (column J). The ratio is the simple division of total lifetime revenue by total lifetime pay for each grade. Output as follows: Row Labels Sum of Lifetime Revenue Sum of Lifetime Pay Unrounded Ratio Rounded Ratio M1 $4,727,876,336 $1,734,938,806 2.725096886 2.73 M2 $3,889,169,727 $1,196,019,801 3.251760316 3.25 M3 $5,473,528,658 $1,788,044,299 3.061181795 3.06 M4 $288,497,996 $101,777,314 2.834600214 2.83 M5 $519,250,542 $299,058,552 1.736283877 1.74 For M4, the ratio = 2.834600214= 2.83 rounded to two decimal places per prompt",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "Calculates the ratio of Average Lifetime Revenue to Average Lifetime Pay for grade M5 as 1.74 (acceptable value is 1.74)",
"sources": "Data.csv",
"justification": "From the dataset data.csv attached, first calculate Lifetime Pay per row (or employee). To do this, we determine the total lifetime (in years) for each employee by finding the difference between each employee's Date of Joining (column B) and 10/25/2025 (per prompt). We can determine this using a formula like this: =DATEDIF(B2,$O$1,'d')/365 Next, we multiply this tenure in years by the Total Pay (column J) which is also in years, per prompt. We can determine the Lifetime Pay using a formula like this, assuming the tenure in years is created in column M: =M2*J2 To determine the weighted average of the ratio of average lifetime revenue to average lifetime pay for every grade, create a pivot table where employee Grade (column C) is the rows and the values are sum of Lifetime Revenue (column L) and sum of the newly calculated Total Pay (column J). The ratio is the simple division of total lifetime revenue by total lifetime pay for each grade. Output as follows: Row Labels Sum of Lifetime Revenue Sum of Lifetime Pay Unrounded Ratio Rounded Ratio M1 $4,727,876,336 $1,734,938,806 2.725096886 2.73 M2 $3,889,169,727 $1,196,019,801 3.251760316 3.25 M3 $5,473,528,658 $1,788,044,299 3.061181795 3.06 M4 $288,497,996 $101,777,314 2.834600214 2.83 M5 $519,250,542 $299,058,552 1.736283877 1.74 For M5, the ratio = 1.736283877= 1.74 rounded to two decimal places per prompt",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "State that M2 is one of the top 2 grades",
"sources": "",
"justification": "As per criterions 12522, 12523, 12524, 12525, 12526, the ratio value for all the grades is as follows- M1: 2.73 M2: 3.25 M3: 3.06 M4: 2.83 M5: 1.74 We can clearly state that M2 has the highest ratio of 3.25, followed by M3 with 3.06",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1,
2,
3,
4,
5
]
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "State that M3 is one of the top 2 grades",
"sources": "",
"justification": "As per criterions 12522, 12523, 12524, 12525, 12526, the ratio value for all the grades is as follows- M1: 2.73 M2: 3.25 M3: 3.06 M4: 2.83 M5: 1.74 We can clearly state that M2 has the highest ratio of 3.25, followed by M3 with 3.06 Criteria 12527 States that M2 is one of the top 2 grades based on Average Lifetime Revenue to Average Lifetime Pay ratio. So M3 is mentioned in this criteria.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6
]
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "Calculate the number of additional employees to be added for M2 as 20 (Acceptable value is 20)",
"sources": "Data.csv",
"justification": "Based on criterion 12527, M2 is a grade with one of the highest ratios. As per the dataset data.csv, the current number of employees for M2 are 101. (Filter on column C 'Grade' and count the rows) As per the prompt instruction, 20% of the workforce needs to be added for two grades with the highest ratios. 20% of workforce for M2 = 20% * 101 = 20.2, which is rounded off to 20, since we can't have fractional employees, per prompt",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
6
]
},
"criterion 9": {
"description": "Calculate the number of additional employees to be added for M3 as 20 (Acceptable value is 20)",
"sources": "Data.csv",
"justification": "Based on criterion 12528, M3 is a grade with one of the highest ratios. As per the dataset data.csv, the current number of employees for M3 are 99. (Filter on column C 'Grade' and count the rows) As per the prompt instruction, 20% of the workforce needs to be added for two grades with the highest ratios. 20% of workforce for M3 = 20% * 99 = 19.8, which is rounded off to 20, since we can't have fractional employees, per prompt",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
7
]
},
"criterion 10": {
"description": "Calculate the total annual additional expense as $78,907,051 (Acceptable value is $78,907,051)",
"sources": "",
"justification": "As per Criterion 12558 & 12559, the cost of adding 20% employees in M2 & M3 is calculated by adding the total cost of hiring in each of the grades. Total Annual Additional Expense = Total Annual Additional Expense for M2 (Criterion 12558) + Total Annual Additional Expense for M3 (Criterion 12559) = $31,764,666 + $47,142,384 = $78,907,050.6 = $78,907,051 rounded per prompt Note: the final answers reported may differ from the answers resulting from expressing the preceding formulas given that the prompt directs that no interim calculations should be rounded.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
11,
12
]
},
"criterion 11": {
"description": "Calculate the total annual additional expense for M2 as $31,764,666 (Acceptable value is $31,764,666)",
"sources": "Data.csv",
"justification": "As per Criterion 12529, 20 employees need to be added at grade M2. As per the dataset data.csv, the average annual pay for M2 is $1,572,508.228 The total annual additional expense for M2 is = 20 * $1,572,508.228 = $31,764,666.2 = $31,764,666 (rounded to nearest whole number as per prompt) Note: the final answers reported may differ from the answers resulting from expressing the preceding formulas given that the prompt directs that no interim calculations should be rounded.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
8
]
},
"criterion 12": {
"description": "Calculate the total annual additional expense for M3 as $47,142,384 (Acceptable value is $47,142,384)",
"sources": "Data.csv",
"justification": "As per Criterion 12530, 20 employees need to be added at grade M3. As per the dataset data.csv, the average annual pay for M3 is $2,380,928.505 The total annual additional expense for M3 is = 20 * $2,380,928.505 = $47,142,384.4 = $47,142,384 (rounded to nearest whole number as per prompt) Note: the final answers reported may differ from the answers resulting from expressing the preceding formulas given that the prompt directs that no interim calculations should be rounded.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
9
]
},
"criterion 13": {
"description": "Recommends the bank should focus on one of the following employee grade levels for its expansion plans: 1) The bank should prioritize expanding high-return senior grades (e.g., M2-M3) 2) The bank should focus on developing lower-grade talent (e.g., M1) 3) A balanced approach should be adopted, expanding senior grades (e.g., M2-M3) while simultaneously building lower-grade talent (e.g., M1) 4) Any one or combination of M1, M2 or M3",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Based on criterion 12527 and 12528, M2 and M3 are the grades with the highest ratios. 1) The bank should prioritize expanding high-return senior grades (M2-M3) since they generate the highest revenue per dollar invested, directly enhancing short-term profitability and operational efficiency. 2) The bank should focus on developing lower-grade talent (M1) because it provides a more scalable and cost-efficient workforce pipeline, ensuring sustained value creation over the long term. 3) A balanced approach should be adopted, expanding M2-M3 for immediate financial impact while simultaneously building M1 capabilities to secure long-term growth and reduce dependency on high-cost senior roles. If the business strategy emphasizes innovation, leadership, and client acquisition, prioritizing M2-M3 expansion makes sense; however, if the focus is cost control and operational efficiency, strengthening M1 is more prudent.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
6,
7
]
}
}
|
documents/1242/Data.csv
|
1,259
|
Consulting
|
Our client is a health insurance payer in the US looking to reprice their insurance policy for this subset of existing customers with dependents to account for the impact of having dependents on a customer’s health: (1) Customers aged under 25, with a BMI of over 25, (2) Customers aged between 25 to 50 (including both ends), with a BMI of over 25, (3) Customers aged over 50, with a BMI of over 25, and (4) Customers aged over 50, with a BMI of under (or equal to) 25. Could you provide the new proposed monthly premium for each of these segments with dependents, along with at least 1 potential risk associated with this price increase methodology (not the overall implications of increasing prices)?
The client has shared the attached data on the charges incurred by their existing customers (i.e., the amount paid out in medical costs by our client) over the last year. Note that these charges are associated with the customer themselves, not their dependents. To reprice each segment, please use the difference between the average per customer charges incurred by each segment mentioned above vs. the corresponding segment without dependents, divided by 12 to get the monthly difference. Then, round up the monthly difference to the next highest multiple of 10. This yields the amount by which our client will raise their monthly premiums for the corresponding customer segment. If the difference is negative, the monthly premium will remain unchanged. The current monthly premium for each of the above segments are: (1) $450, (2) $600, (3) $1000, and (4) $800, respectively. Please include all interim calculations, round all reported numbers to the nearest whole number but do not round interim calculations.
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "States that the difference between the average annual charges incurred by customers aged under 25 and with a BMI of over 25 with dependents vs. without dependents is $4,075 (acceptable range is $3,975 to $4,175).",
"sources": "insurance.csv",
"justification": "To assess the data and create the data splits that can help us address the client's ask, we first need to classify each customer using the following formulas and fields: - Age group = IF(A2 < 25, 'Under 25' , IF ( A2 \u2264 50, '25 to 50' , 'Above 50')) where column A = 'age' column; - BMI category = IF(C2 \u2264 25,'Under 25','Over 25')\u00a0 where column C = 'bmi' column; - Dependent category = IF(D2 <> 0, 'With Dependents' , 'Without Dependents') where column D = 'children' column. Once these fields have been created, we can get all required datapoints by creating 2 pivot tables: Table 1 - Rows: 'Age group' - Columns: 'BMI category' - Values: Average of 'charges' - Filter: 'Dependent category' = 'With Dependents' Table 2 - Rows: 'Age group' - Columns: 'BMI category' - Values: Average of 'charges' - Filter: 'Dependent category' = 'Without Dependents' This gives us the following numbers: Table 1 Age Group Under 25 Over 25 Under 25 $5,506 $12,802 25 to 50 $10,785 $13,074 Above 50 $16,566 $20,223 Table 2 Age Group Under 25 Over 25 Under 25 $5,656 $8,727 25 to 50 $9,761 $12,737 Above 50 $14,325 $17,164 This gives us the following information for the 4 customer segments our client is interested in repricing Age Group BMI Annual Difference (w/ Dependents - w/o) (1) Under 25 Over 25 = $12,801.6 - $8,726.5 = $4,075.1 (2) 25 to 50 Over 25 = $13,073.9 - $12,736.8 = $337.1 (3) Above 50 Over 25 = $20,223.1 - $17,163.7 = $3,059.4 (4) Above 50 Under 25 = $16,565.8 - $14,324.7 = $2,241.1 Output to be reported in whole numbers as follows: (1) Under 25 Over 25 = $4,075 (2) 25 to 50 Over 25 = $337 (3) Above 50 Over 25 = $3,059 (4) Above 50 Under 25 = $2,241",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "States that the difference between the average annual charges incurred by customers aged between 25 and 50 and with a BMI of over 25 with dependents vs. without dependents is $337 (acceptable range is $327 to $347).",
"sources": "insurance.csv",
"justification": "To assess the data and create the data splits that can help us address the client's ask, we first need to classify each customer using the following formulas and fields: - Age group = IF(A2 < 25, 'Under 25' , IF ( A2 \u2264 50, '25 to 50' , 'Above 50')) where column A = 'age' column; - BMI category = IF(C2 \u2264 25,'Under 25','Over 25')\u00a0 where column C = 'bmi' column; - Dependent category = IF(D2 <> 0, 'With Dependents' , 'Without Dependents') where column D = 'children' column. Once these fields have been created, we can get all required datapoints by creating 2 pivot tables: Table 1 - Rows: 'Age group' - Columns: 'BMI category' - Values: Average of 'charges' - Filter: 'Dependent category' = 'With Dependents' Table 2 - Rows: 'Age group' - Columns: 'BMI category' - Values: Average of 'charges' - Filter: 'Dependent category' = 'Without Dependents' This gives us the following numbers: Table 1 Age Group Under 25 Over 25 Under 25 $5,506 $12,802 25 to 50 $10,785 $13,074 Above 50 $16,566 $20,223 Table 2 Age Group Under 25 Over 25 Under 25 $5,656 $8,727 25 to 50 $9,761 $12,737 Above 50 $14,325 $17,164 This gives us the following information for the 4 customer segments our client is interested in repricing Age Group BMI Annual Difference (w/ Dependents - w/o) (1) Under 25 Over 25 = $12,801.6 - $8,726.5 = $4,075.1 (2) 25 to 50 Over 25 = $13,073.9 - $12,736.8 = $337.1 (3) Above 50 Over 25 = $20,223.1 - $17,163.7 = $3,059.4 (4) Above 50 Under 25 = $16,565.8 - $14,324.7 = $2,241.1 Output to be reported in whole numbers as follows: (1) Under 25 Over 25 = $4,075 (2) 25 to 50 Over 25 = $337 (3) Above 50 Over 25 = $3,059 (4) Above 50 Under 25 = $2,241",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "States that the difference between the average annual charges incurred by customers aged above 50 and with a BMI of over 25 with dependents vs. without dependents is $3,059 (acceptable range is $2,959 to $3,159).",
"sources": "insurance.csv",
"justification": "To assess the data and create the data splits that can help us address the client's ask, we first need to classify each customer using the following formulas and fields: - Age group = IF(A2 < 25, 'Under 25' , IF ( A2 \u2264 50, '25 to 50' , 'Above 50')) where column A = 'age' column; - BMI category = IF(C2 \u2264 25,'Under 25','Over 25')\u00a0 where column C = 'bmi' column; - Dependent category = IF(D2 <> 0, 'With Dependents' , 'Without Dependents') where column D = 'children' column. Once these fields have been created, we can get all required datapoints by creating 2 pivot tables: Table 1 - Rows: 'Age group' - Columns: 'BMI category' - Values: Average of 'charges' - Filter: 'Dependent category' = 'With Dependents' Table 2 - Rows: 'Age group' - Columns: 'BMI category' - Values: Average of 'charges' - Filter: 'Dependent category' = 'Without Dependents' This gives us the following numbers: Table 1 Age Group Under 25 Over 25 Under 25 $5,506 $12,802 25 to 50 $10,785 $13,074 Above 50 $16,566 $20,223 Table 2 Age Group Under 25 Over 25 Under 25 $5,656 $8,727 25 to 50 $9,761 $12,737 Above 50 $14,325 $17,164 This gives us the following information for the 4 customer segments our client is interested in repricing Age Group BMI Annual Difference (w/ Dependents - w/o) (1) Under 25 Over 25 = $12,801.6 - $8,726.5 = $4,075.1 (2) 25 to 50 Over 25 = $13,073.9 - $12,736.8 = $337.1 (3) Above 50 Over 25 = $20,223.1 - $17,163.7 = $3,059.4 (4) Above 50 Under 25 = $16,565.8 - $14,324.7 = $2,241.1 Output to be reported in whole numbers as follows: (1) Under 25 Over 25 = $4,075 (2) 25 to 50 Over 25 = $337 (3) Above 50 Over 25 = $3,059 (4) Above 50 Under 25 = $2,241",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "States that the difference between the average annual charges incurred by customers aged above 50 and with a BMI of under or equal to 25 with dependents vs. without dependents is $2,241 (acceptable range is $2,141 to $2,341).",
"sources": "insurance.csv",
"justification": "To assess the data and create the data splits that can help us address the client's ask, we first need to classify each customer using the following formulas and fields: - Age group = IF(A2 < 25, 'Under 25' , IF ( A2 \u2264 50, '25 to 50' , 'Above 50')) where column A = 'age' column; - BMI category = IF(C2 \u2264 25,'Under 25','Over 25')\u00a0 where column C = 'bmi' column; - Dependent category = IF(D2 <> 0, 'With Dependents' , 'Without Dependents') where column D = 'children' column. Once these fields have been created, we can get all required datapoints by creating 2 pivot tables: Table 1 - Rows: 'Age group' - Columns: 'BMI category' - Values: Average of 'charges' - Filter: 'Dependent category' = 'With Dependents' Table 2 - Rows: 'Age group' - Columns: 'BMI category' - Values: Average of 'charges' - Filter: 'Dependent category' = 'Without Dependents' This gives us the following numbers: Table 1 Age Group Under 25 Over 25 Under 25 $5,506 $12,802 25 to 50 $10,785 $13,074 Above 50 $16,566 $20,223 Table 2 Age Group Under 25 Over 25 Under 25 $5,656 $8,727 25 to 50 $9,761 $12,737 Above 50 $14,325 $17,164 This gives us the following information for the 4 customer segments our client is interested in repricing Age Group BMI Annual Difference (w/ Dependents - w/o) (1) Under 25 Over 25 = $12,801.6 - $8,726.5 = $4,075.1 (2) 25 to 50 Over 25 = $13,073.9 - $12,736.8 = $337.1 (3) Above 50 Over 25 = $20,223.1 - $17,163.7 = $3,059.4 (4) Above 50 Under 25 = $16,565.8 - $14,324.7 = $2,241.1 Output to be reported in whole numbers as follows: (1) Under 25 Over 25 = $4,075 (2) 25 to 50 Over 25 = $337 (3) Above 50 Over 25 = $3,059 (4) Above 50 Under 25 = $2,241",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "Recommends that the updated monthly premium for customers aged under 25, with a BMI of over 25, who have dependents should be $790 per month (acceptable range is $780 to $800).",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "To calculate the new monthly premiums, we first need to add additional fields to the underlying dataset: - Age group = IF(A2 < 25, 'Under 25' , IF ( A2 \u2264 50, '25 to 50' , 'Above 50')) where column A = 'age' column; - BMI category = IF(C2 \u2264 25,'Under 25','Over 25')\u00a0 where column C = 'bmi' column; - Dependent category = IF(D2 <> 0, 'With Dependents' , 'Without Dependents') where column D = 'children' column. We know from criteria (IDs 12733, 12734, 12735, and 12736) that the difference between customers with and without dependents for the 4 customer segments our client wants to reprice is as follows: Age Group BMI Annual Difference Under 25 Over 25 $4,075 25 to 50 Over 25 $337 Above 50 Over 25 $3,059 Above 50 Under 25 $2,241 Per the prompt, we know that the amount our client would like to increase current premiums by (for each category) is equal to this difference, divided by 12, and rounded to the next highest multiple of 10.\u00a0 We also know from the prompt that the current monthly premiums for each customer segment are as follows: Age Group BMI Current Premium Under 25 Over 25 $450 25 to 50 Over 25 $600 Above 50 Over 25 $1,000 Above 50 Under 25 $800 Therefore, the new premiums can be calculated as = roundup(Annual Difference / 12, -1) + Current Premium The new premiums for customers aged between 25 and 50 (both inclusive) and a BMI of over 25 is therefore = roundup(337/12, -1) + $600 = roundup($28.1,-1) + $600 = $30 + $600 = $630 To summarize, our recommendation is as follows: Age Group BMI Proposed New Premium Under 25 Over 25 $790 25 to 50 Over 25 $630 Above 50 Over 25 $1,260 Above 50 Under 25 $990 Therefore, the premiums for customers aged under 25, with a BMI of over 25, and with a dependent, should be $630 (direct reference of criterion ID 12734). Numbers to be reported as whole numbers, though due to rounding output should only be multiples of 10. Please note, the answers resulting from expressing the stated formulas with the stated inputs may vary from the final presented answers given that the prompt instructs that interim calculations should not be rounded.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1
]
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "Recommends that the updated monthly premium for customers aged between 25 to 50 (including both ends), with a BMI of over 25, who have dependents should be $630 per month (acceptable range is $620 to $640).",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "To calculate the new monthly premiums, we first need to add additional fields to the underlying dataset: - Age group = IF(A2 < 25, 'Under 25' , IF ( A2 \u2264 50, '25 to 50' , 'Above 50')) where column A = 'age' column; - BMI category = IF(C2 \u2264 25,'Under 25','Over 25')\u00a0 where column C = 'bmi' column; - Dependent category = IF(D2 <> 0, 'With Dependents' , 'Without Dependents') where column D = 'children' column. We know from criteria (IDs 12733, 12734, 12735, and 12736) that the difference between customers with and without dependents for the 4 customer segments our client wants to reprice is as follows: Age Group BMI Annual Difference Under 25 Over 25 $4,075 25 to 50 Over 25 $337 Above 50 Over 25 $3,059 Above 50 Under 25 $2,241 Per the prompt, we know that the amount our client would like to increase current premiums by (for each category) is equal to this difference, divided by 12, and rounded to the next highest multiple of 10.\u00a0 We also know from the prompt that the current monthly premiums for each customer segment are as follows: Age Group BMI Current Premium Under 25 Over 25 $450 25 to 50 Over 25 $600 Above 50 Over 25 $1,000 Above 50 Under 25 $800 Therefore, the new premiums can be calculated as = roundup(Annual Difference / 12, -1) + Current Premium The new premiums for customers aged between 25 and 50 (both inclusive) and a BMI of over 25 is therefore = roundup(337/12, -1) + $600 = roundup($28.1,-1) + $600 = $30 + $600 = $630 To summarize, our recommendation is as follows: Age Group BMI Proposed New Premium Under 25 Over 25 $790 25 to 50 Over 25 $630 Above 50 Over 25 $1,260 Above 50 Under 25 $990 Therefore, the premiums for customers aged under 25, with a BMI of over 25, and with a dependent, should be $630 (direct reference of criterion ID 12734). Numbers to be reported as whole numbers, though due to rounding output should only be multiples of 10. Please note, the answers resulting from expressing the stated formulas with the stated inputs may vary from the final presented answers given that the prompt instructs that interim calculations should not be rounded.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
2
]
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "Recommends that the updated monthly premium for customers aged over 50, with a BMI of over 25, who have dependents should be $1,260 per month (acceptable range is $1,250 to $1,270).",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "To calculate the new monthly premiums, we first need to add additional fields to the underlying dataset: - Age group = IF(A2 < 25, 'Under 25' , IF ( A2 \u2264 50, '25 to 50' , 'Above 50')) where column A = 'age' column; - BMI category = IF(C2 \u2264 25,'Under 25','Over 25')\u00a0 where column C = 'bmi' column; - Dependent category = IF(D2 <> 0, 'With Dependents' , 'Without Dependents') where column D = 'children' column. We know from criteria (IDs 12733, 12734, 12735, and 12736) that the difference between customers with and without dependents for the 4 customer segments our client wants to reprice is as follows: Age Group BMI Annual Difference Under 25 Over 25 $4,075 25 to 50 Over 25 $337 Above 50 Over 25 $3,059 Above 50 Under 25 $2,241 Per the prompt, we know that the amount our client would like to increase current premiums by (for each category) is equal to this difference, divided by 12, and rounded to the next highest multiple of 10.\u00a0 We also know from the prompt that the current monthly premiums for each customer segment are as follows: Age Group BMI Current Premium Under 25 Over 25 $450 25 to 50 Over 25 $600 Above 50 Over 25 $1,000 Above 50 Under 25 $800 Therefore, the new premiums can be calculated as = roundup(Annual Difference / 12, -1) + Current Premium The new premiums for customers aged between 25 and 50 (both inclusive) and a BMI of over 25 is therefore = roundup(337/12, -1) + $600 = roundup($28.1,-1) + $600 = $30 + $600 = $630 To summarize, our recommendation is as follows: Age Group BMI Proposed New Premium Under 25 Over 25 $790 25 to 50 Over 25 $630 Above 50 Over 25 $1,260 Above 50 Under 25 $990 Therefore, the premiums for customers aged under 25, with a BMI of over 25, and with a dependent, should be $630 (direct reference of criterion ID 12734). Numbers to be reported as whole numbers, though due to rounding output should only be multiples of 10. Please note, the answers resulting from expressing the stated formulas with the stated inputs may vary from the final presented answers given that the prompt instructs that interim calculations should not be rounded.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
3
]
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "Recommends that the updated monthly premium for customers aged over 50, with a BMI of under or equal to 25, who have dependents should be $990 per month (acceptable range is $980 to $1,000).",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "To calculate the new monthly premiums, we first need to add additional fields to the underlying dataset: - Age group = IF(A2 < 25, 'Under 25' , IF ( A2 \u2264 50, '25 to 50' , 'Above 50')) where column A = 'age' column; - BMI category = IF(C2 \u2264 25,'Under 25','Over 25')\u00a0 where column C = 'bmi' column; - Dependent category = IF(D2 <> 0, 'With Dependents' , 'Without Dependents') where column D = 'children' column. We know from criteria (IDs 12733, 12734, 12735, and 12736) that the difference between customers with and without dependents for the 4 customer segments our client wants to reprice is as follows: Age Group BMI Annual Difference Under 25 Over 25 $4,075 25 to 50 Over 25 $337 Above 50 Over 25 $3,059 Above 50 Under 25 $2,241 Per the prompt, we know that the amount our client would like to increase current premiums by (for each category) is equal to this difference, divided by 12, and rounded to the next highest multiple of 10.\u00a0 We also know from the prompt that the current monthly premiums for each customer segment are as follows: Age Group BMI Current Premium Under 25 Over 25 $450 25 to 50 Over 25 $600 Above 50 Over 25 $1,000 Above 50 Under 25 $800 Therefore, the new premiums can be calculated as = roundup(Annual Difference / 12, -1) + Current Premium The new premiums for customers aged between 25 and 50 (both inclusive) and a BMI of over 25 is therefore = roundup(337/12, -1) + $600 = roundup($28.1,-1) + $600 = $30 + $600 = $630 To summarize, our recommendation is as follows: Age Group BMI Proposed New Premium Under 25 Over 25 $790 25 to 50 Over 25 $630 Above 50 Over 25 $1,260 Above 50 Under 25 $990 Therefore, the premiums for customers aged under 25, with a BMI of over 25, and with a dependent, should be $630 (direct reference of criterion ID 12734). Numbers to be reported as whole numbers, though due to rounding output should only be multiples of 10. Please note, the answers resulting from expressing the stated formulas with the stated inputs may vary from the final presented answers given that the prompt instructs that interim calculations should not be rounded.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
4
]
},
"criterion 9": {
"description": "States at least one of the following key risks with the pricing methodology: - It unfairly penalizes customers for having children as opposed to focusing on underlying health issues to drive pricing. - It does not account for outliers especially for smaller customer segments. - It does not incorporate known health determinants other than BMI and age (e.g., smoking behavior).",
"sources": "",
"justification": "A consultant would readily state at least one of the following risk factors associated with this methodology: - The methodology does not address other drivers of medical costs, including drivers that have been widely studied and acknowledged, e.g., whether a customer is a smoker or not, or if they exercise or not. - The methodology treats correlation as causation, potentially unfairly penalizing individuals with children when other underlying health conditions or habits may be at play. - The methodology does not account for outliers, particularly for customer segments with a low N where outliers can skew averages significantly.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
}
}
|
documents/1259/insurance.csv
|
1,265
|
Consulting
|
Titan Capital Partners is preparing to launch a late-stage PE fund targeting high-growth unicorns and has asked our firm to identify which regions and industries offer the best combination of scale, depth, and growth momentum for allocation.
Based on the enclosed dataset, could you provide the total combined valuation of all unicorns worldwide, which country produced the most unicorns and the number of unicorns it produced, which country contributed the largest share (%) of the total combined global valuation of all unicorns and the country’s percentage share of valuation dollars, which industry has the highest average valuation per unicorn and the average valuation for the industry as well as what percentage of unicorns became unicorns since 2021 (inclusive of 2021) as a share of total unicorns? Can you also calculate the ratio of the average valuation of the most valuable 10% of unicorns by count (round up if needed) vs. the bottom 90%? If we decide to choose based only on these numbers that you just calculated, which country-industry combination should Titan Capital focus its next fund on? Taking into account the full dataset, but only the dataset, explain why that industry might not be the best choice for that chosen country. Please provide underlying calculations, do not round intermediate calculations, round all monetary figure outputs to the nearest $B and provide percentage and ratio figure outputs rounded to one decimal place.
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "Calculates the total combined valuation of all unicorns globally as $3,853B (acceptable value is $3,853B).",
"sources": "Unicorns",
"justification": "From the dataset 'Unicorns.csv', calculate the sum of all valuations from column B as $3,853B, rounded from $3852.51 per prompt",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "Identifies the country that produced the most unicorns as United States.",
"sources": "Unicorns",
"justification": "From the dataset 'Unicorns.csv', group the country (col D) and calculate the count of unicorns. As per below, United states is the country with the highest number of unicorns. United States 656 China 168 India 71 United Kingdom 54 Singapore 17 Germany 31 France 26 Israel 25 Canada 21 Australia 9 Brazil 17 South Korea 15 Netherlands 9 Sweden 6 Mexico 8 Turkey 3 Finland 4 Switzerland 6 Seychelles 2 Ireland 7 Indonesia 7 Hong Kong 7 Belgium 3 Estonia 2 Japan 7 Austria 2 United Arab Emirates 5 Lithuania 2 Colombia 3 Spain 5 Denmark 2 Vietnam 2 Italy 3 Norway 4 Thailand 3 Greece 2 Croatia 2 Chile 2 Argentina 1 Luxembourg 1 Nigeria 1 Senegal 1 Malaysia 1 Bermuda 1 South Africa 1 Ecuador 1 Czech Republic 1 Uzbekistan 1 Egypt 1 Saudi Arabia 1 Cayman Islands 1 Liechtenstein 1 Philippines 1",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "Calculates the total number of unicorns produced by the United States as 656 (acceptable value is 656).",
"sources": "Unicorns",
"justification": "From the dataset 'Unicorns.csv' and criterion 12752, group the country (col D) and calculate the count of unicorns. United states is the country with the highest number of unicorns with 656 unicorns. United States 656 China 168 India 71 United Kingdom 54 Singapore 17 Germany 31 France 26 Israel 25 Canada 21 Australia 9 Brazil 17 South Korea 15 Netherlands 9 Sweden 6 Mexico 8 Turkey 3 Finland 4 Switzerland 6 Seychelles 2 Ireland 7 Indonesia 7 Hong Kong 7 Belgium 3 Estonia 2 Japan 7 Austria 2 United Arab Emirates 5 Lithuania 2 Colombia 3 Spain 5 Denmark 2 Vietnam 2 Italy 3 Norway 4 Thailand 3 Greece 2 Croatia 2 Chile 2 Argentina 1 Luxembourg 1 Nigeria 1 Senegal 1 Malaysia 1 Bermuda 1 South Africa 1 Ecuador 1 Czech Republic 1 Uzbekistan 1 Egypt 1 Saudi Arabia 1 Cayman Islands 1 Liechtenstein 1 Philippines 1",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
2
]
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "Identifies the country with largest share of the total combined global valuation of all unicorns as United States.",
"sources": "Unicorns",
"justification": "From the dataset 'Unicorns.csv', group the country (col D) and calculate the sum of valuation (col B). Then divide each country's valuation with total valuation of $3,853 (criterion 12751) As per below, United states is the country with the largest valuation share Country Valuation Share United States 2111.7 54.81% China 640.7 16.63% India 192.24 4.99% United Kingdom 177.69 4.61% Singapore 94.71 2.46% Germany 81.35 2.11% France 61.03 1.58% Israel 56.32 1.46% Canada 52.23 1.36% Australia 42.33 1.10% Brazil 38.64 1.00% South Korea 34.57 0.90% Netherlands 24.46 0.63% Sweden 21.62 0.56% Mexico 18.7 0.49% Turkey 13.55 0.35% Finland 12.46 0.32% Switzerland 12.3 0.32% Seychelles 11.8 0.31% Ireland 11.05 0.29% Indonesia 10.43 0.27% Hong Kong 10.35 0.27% Belgium 10.08 0.26% Estonia 9.9 0.26% Japan 9.82 0.25% Austria 7.61 0.20% United Arab Emirates 7.55 0.20% Lithuania 7.53 0.20% Colombia 7.4 0.19% Spain 7.15 0.19% Denmark 6.7 0.17% Vietnam 5.27 0.14% Italy 4.55 0.12% Norway 4.5 0.12% Thailand 3.5 0.09% Greece 3.32 0.09% Croatia 3 0.08% Chile 2.5 0.06% Argentina 2.45 0.06% Luxembourg 2 0.05% Nigeria 2 0.05% Senegal 1.7 0.04% Malaysia 1.7 0.04% Bermuda 1.6 0.04% South Africa 1.59 0.04% Ecuador 1.5 0.04% Czech Republic 1.2 0.03% Uzbekistan 1.16 0.03% Egypt 1 0.03% Saudi Arabia 1 0.03% Cayman Islands 1 0.03% Liechtenstein 1 0.03% Philippines 1 0.03% NOTE: final answers may vary from the figures depicted in formulas, given that prompt states no interim calculations should be rounded.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1
]
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "Calculates the percentage share of valuation dollars for unicorns for United States as 54.8%.",
"sources": "Unicorns",
"justification": "From the dataset 'Unicorns.csv' and criterion 12754, group the country (col D) and calculate the sum of valuation (col B). Then divide each country's valuation with total valuation $3,853 (criterion 12751) As per below, United states is the country with the largest valuation share ~54.81% (Rounded to 54.8% as per prompt to one decimal place) Country Valuation Share United States 2111.7 54.81% China 640.7 16.63% India 192.24 4.99% United Kingdom 177.69 4.61% Singapore 94.71 2.46% Germany 81.35 2.11% France 61.03 1.58% Israel 56.32 1.46% Canada 52.23 1.36% Australia 42.33 1.10% Brazil 38.64 1.00% South Korea 34.57 0.90% Netherlands 24.46 0.63% Sweden 21.62 0.56% Mexico 18.7 0.49% Turkey 13.55 0.35% Finland 12.46 0.32% Switzerland 12.3 0.32% Seychelles 11.8 0.31% Ireland 11.05 0.29% Indonesia 10.43 0.27% Hong Kong 10.35 0.27% Belgium 10.08 0.26% Estonia 9.9 0.26% Japan 9.82 0.25% Austria 7.61 0.20% United Arab Emirates 7.55 0.20% Lithuania 7.53 0.20% Colombia 7.4 0.19% Spain 7.15 0.19% Denmark 6.7 0.17% Vietnam 5.27 0.14% Italy 4.55 0.12% Norway 4.5 0.12% Thailand 3.5 0.09% Greece 3.32 0.09% Croatia 3 0.08% Chile 2.5 0.06% Argentina 2.45 0.06% Luxembourg 2 0.05% Nigeria 2 0.05% Senegal 1.7 0.04% Malaysia 1.7 0.04% Bermuda 1.6 0.04% South Africa 1.59 0.04% Ecuador 1.5 0.04% Czech Republic 1.2 0.03% Uzbekistan 1.16 0.03% Egypt 1 0.03% Saudi Arabia 1 0.03% Cayman Islands 1 0.03% Liechtenstein 1 0.03% Philippines 1 0.03% NOTE: final answers may vary from the figures depicted in formulas, given that prompt states no interim calculations should be rounded.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
4,
1
]
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "Identifies the industry with highest average valuation per unicorn as Media & Entertainment.",
"sources": "Unicorns",
"justification": "From the dataset 'Unicorns.csv', group the industry (col F) and calculate the average valuation per unicorn (col B). As per below, Media & Entertainment is the industry with the highest average valuation. Media & Entertainment 5.80 Industrials 3.23 Enterprise Tech 2.89 Consumer & Retail 2.87 Financial Services 3.24 Healthcare & Life Sciences 2.32 Insurance 2.13 Health 1.00",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "Calculates the average valuation per unicorn for Media & Entertainment as $6B (acceptable value is 6B).",
"sources": "Unicorns",
"justification": "From the dataset 'Unicorns.csv' and criterion 12756, group the industry (col F) and calculate the average of valuation per unicorn (col B). As per below, Media & Entertainment is the industry with the highest average valuation of $5.8B, ~$6B (round to nearest whole number as per prompt). Media & Entertainment 5.80 Industrials 3.23 Enterprise Tech 2.89 Consumer & Retail 2.87 Financial Services 3.24 Healthcare & Life Sciences 2.32 Insurance 2.13 Health 1.00",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
6
]
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "Calculates the percentage of unicorns that became unicorns since 2021 as 68.5% (acceptable value is 68.0% to 68.9%).",
"sources": "Unicorns",
"justification": "From the dataset 'Unicorns.csv', filter for the unicorns which has joined since 2021. There were 845 unicorns out of total 1233 unicorns which translates to 68.53% (68.5% rounded to one decimal place as per prompt).",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 9": {
"description": "Calculates the avg valuation of the top 10% of unicorns as $14B (acceptable range is $13B to $15B).",
"sources": "Unicorns",
"justification": "From the dataset 'Unicorns.csv', identify the total number of companies within the top 10% percentile by count Total unicorns = 1,233 Top 10% = 123.3 ~124 unicorns (rounded up as per the prompt) Then sort the unicorns from top to bottom where top is the highest valuation. Total value of top 10% ordered by valuation = $1,781.77 (Col. B) The average valuation for the top (most valuable) 10% unicorns is ($1,781.77/124) = $14.37B, rounded to $14B per prompt.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 10": {
"description": "Calculates the avg valuation of the bottom 90% of unicorns as $2B (acceptable range is $1B to $3B).",
"sources": "Unicorns",
"justification": "From the dataset 'Unicorns.csv', identify the total number of companies within the top 10% percentile Total unicorns = 1,233 Top 10% = 123.3 ~124 unicorns Then sort the unicorns from top to bottom where top is the highest valuation. Total value of bottom 90% ordered by valuation = $2,070.74 (Col. B) The average valuation for bottom (least valuable) 90% unicorns is calculated as $2,070.74/ (1,233-124) = $1.87B = $2B rounded to two decimal places per prompt.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 11": {
"description": "Calculates the ratio of the avg. valuation of the top 10% to the bottom 90% of unicorns as 7.7 (acceptable range is 7.0 to 8.4).",
"sources": "",
"justification": "From criterion 12759, the average valuation for the top (most valuable) 10% unicorns is $14B as per prompt. From criterion 12789, the average valuation for bottom (least valuable) 90% unicorns is $2B Ratio is calculated = $14B/$2B = 7.695 = 7.7 (rounded to one decimal place as per prompt) NOTE: final answers may vary from the figures depicted in formulas, given that prompt states no interim calculations should be rounded.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
9,
10
]
},
"criterion 12": {
"description": "Recommends that Titan Capital should prioritize the country-industry combination of United States and Media & Entertainment industry.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "The U.S. not hosts the largest pool of deal flow (656 unicorns) [criterion 12753] and controls a majority of value (54.8% of global valuation) [criterion 12755], while Media & Entertainment shows the highest per-company valuation ($6B avg) [criterion 12757].",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
2,
4,
6
]
},
"criterion 13": {
"description": "Provides at least one of the following as an explanation for the Media & Entertainment not being the best industry to prioritize within the United States: -Within the United States, the industry with highest average valuation is Industrials -ByteDance is inflating the Media & Entertainment Industry's average valuation -ByteDance is not located in the United States -When outliers are removed, the highest average industry is no longer Media & Entertainment",
"sources": "Unicorns",
"justification": "Within the US, here is the average: Media & Entertainment 3.35 Industrials 4.53 Enterprise Tech 3.18 Consumer & Retail 2.78 Financial Services 3.56 Healthcare & Life Sciences 2.33 Insurance 1.94 Health #DIV/0! Industrials is bigger. Without ByteDance, the average for Media & Entertainment is 3.12. ByteDance is located in China, so it may be skewing the analysis. ByteDance is 10x higher valuation than the second biggest Media & Entertainment unicorn",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
12
]
}
}
|
documents/1265/Unicorns.csv
|
1,269
|
Consulting
|
An international surfing company is planning on expanding into the USA and wants to begin by launching its surfboard products in California in 2030 based on the enclosed county-level population data in the state. Could you provide the total population for California in 2020 and 2024 as well as the projected population in the state in 2030, assuming a base year of 2024 for the forecast as well as that the 2020-2024 county-level population CAGR can be used to project to 2030? Could you also calculate the projected market size for my client in 2030, assuming 10% of the population in California counties with more than 1M individuals will be interested in the client’s products and will be willing to spend an average of $250 per person per year, while only 5% of the total population of smaller counties in the state will be interested and will be willing to spend an average of $100 per person per year? Based on the above assumptions and analysis, please indicate whether you think the market size estimate is too high or too low and provide a reason why. Please round population figures to the nearest person and provide financial figures rounded to the nearest dollar.
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "Calculates total California population in 2020 as 39,521,958 (acceptable value is 39,521,958)",
"sources": "CA Population 2020 to 2024.csv",
"justification": "From CA Population 2020 to 2024.csv Sum up the POP_2020 column (column C) to get 39,521,958",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "Calculates total California population in 2024 as 39,431,263 (acceptable value is 39,431,263)",
"sources": "CA Population 2020 to 2024.csv",
"justification": "From CA Population 2020 to 2024.csv Sum up the POP_2024 column (column G) to get 39,431,263",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "Calculates total California population in 2030 as 39,338,611 (acceptable value is 39,338,611)",
"sources": "CA Population 2020 to 2024.csv",
"justification": "From CA Population 2020 to 2024.csv Take the annual CAGR between 2020 and 2024 (column C and G) for each row at a county level and then apply it to the the 6th rate of compounding to 2024 base (column G) to get to 2030 estimates Then sum up all the 2030 populations by county to get the total population for California of 39,338,612 (rounded from 39,338,611.495)",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "Calculates total California population in 2030 within larger population areas of >1M people as 28,217,244 (acceptable range is 28,217,200 to 28,217,300)",
"sources": "CA Population 2020 to 2024.csv",
"justification": "From CA Population 2020 to 2024.csv Take the annual CAGR between 2020 and 2024 (column C and G) at a county level and then apply it to the 2024 base (column G) to get to 2030 estimates at a county level. Applying it means multiplying it to the 6th power (difference of 6 years between 2030 and 2024) Then sumif the total population if greater than 1M to find the total population in larger counties of 28,217,244 (rounded from 28,217,244.2)",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "Calculates total California population in 2030 within smaller population areas of <=1M people as 11,121,367 (acceptable range is 11,121,300 to 11,121,400)",
"sources": "CA Population 2020 to 2024.csv",
"justification": "From CA Population 2020 to 2024.csv Take the annual CAGR between 2020 and 2024 (column C and G) at a county level and then apply it to the 2024 base (column G) to get to 2030 estimates at a county level. Applying it means multiplying it to the 6th power (difference of 6 years between 2030 and 2024) Then sumif the total population if less than or equal to 1M to find the total population in smaller counties of 11,121,367 (rounded from 11,121,367.3)",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "Calculates total market size as $761,037,942 (acceptable range is $761,037,900 to $761,038,000)",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "From CA Population 2020 to 2024.csv Take the annual CAGR between 2020 and 2024 (column C and G) at a county level and then apply it to the 2024 base (column G) to get to 2030 estimates at a county level. Applying it means multiplying it to the 6th power (difference of 6 years between 2030 and 2024) Larger population: Then sumif the total population if greater than 1M to find the total population in larger counties of 28,217,244. Multiply by 10% and $250 as stated in the prompt to get $705,431,105.17 Smaller population: Then sumif the total population if less than or equal to 1M to find the total population in smaller counties of 11,121,367. Then multiply by 5% and $100 as stated in the prompt to get $55,606,836.44 Finally sum up the larger population and smaller population markets to get the total TAM of $761,037,942 (rounded from $761,037,941.61 as per prompt)",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
4,
5
]
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "Identifies that the market size estimate is too high",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "A $700M market sizing in California alone for surfing is way too large, driven by the over-optimistic assumptions",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
6
]
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "Provides one of the following options below as a reason why the market size estimate is too high: - Some of the assumptions may be overly-optimistic - Surfing is a niche recreational activity that is not evenly distributed across counties",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "A consultant would agree that these are acceptable answers for why the TAM maybe overstated 1) While California has a large coastal and affluent population, assuming 10% of residents in large counties and 5% in smaller counties are active or potential surfboard buyers likely overstates real demand. 2) Surfing is a niche recreational activity, concentrated heavily along certain coastal areas (e.g., San Diego, Orange, and Santa Cruz counties), not evenly distributed across inland counties that are included in the calculation.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
7,
6
]
}
}
|
documents/1269/CA Population 2020 to 2024.csv
|
1,288
|
Consulting
|
Our Healthcare system client’s internal analytics team is reporting strong performance from its CDI pilot, indicating benchmark achievement across all KPIs with a recommendation to proceed with enterprise rollout. The executive board wants us to perform an independent validation and help with a strategy for their next steps.
I sent you the pilot results. Please give that a review and let me know the average percentage reduction in clinician documentation time per encounter following the implementation of the AI-assisted CDI tool (unweighted per-encounter average). Now, give me the percentage increase in documentation throughput per encounter after AI implementation, based on average documentation time reduction across all encounters(unweighted.) Next, how much did the accuracy of coded documentation improve after the AI implementation (unweighted per-encounter average). Then calculate the percentage reduction in claim denial rate between manual and AI-assisted workflows, using the aggregate averages for each.
Now to wrap things up, their internal team said they were 4 for 4 on document time reduction (25.00% or higher), throughput gain (35.00% or higher), Coding accuracy improvement (3.00% or higher) and denial rate reduction (30.00% or higher). Give me one recommendation to take to the board meeting next week regarding readiness for the desired enterprise rollout, and don't forget your underlying reasoning.
We need all calculated values with two decimal places.
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "Calculates the average percentage reduction in clinician documentation time per encounter as 25.49%. (Acceptable range is 25.39% to 25.59%).",
"sources": "CDI_Automation_Pilot.csv",
"justification": "Using the CDI_Automation_Pilot.csv dataset, For each encounter i, compute reduction_i = ((Manual_Doc_Time_Min_i - AI_Doc_Time_Min_i) / Manual_Doc_Time_Min_i) x 100 using Column D (Manual_Doc_Time_Min) and Column E (AI_Doc_Time_Min). Then take the unweighted mean of reduction_i across all encounters. The unweighted per-encounter average reduction is 25.49%, rounded to two decimals per the prompt. (34.8988 - 26.0031)/34.8988 x 100 = 25.4899 Rounds to 25.49% per the prompt.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "Calculates the percentage increase in documentation accuracy as 4.38%. (Acceptable range is 4.28% to 4.48%).",
"sources": "CDI_Automation_Pilot.csv",
"justification": "Using Column G (Coding_Accuracy_Before_%) and Column H (Coding_Accuracy_After_%), compute for each encounter i: improvement_i = ((H_i - G_i) / G_i) x 100. Then take the unweighted mean of improvement_i across encounters. The unweighted per-encounter average improvement is 4.38%, rounded to two decimals per the prompt. (95.4831-91.4772)/91.4772 x 100 = 4.3791 Rounded to 4.38% per the prompt.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "Calculates the percentage reduction in claim denial rate as 34.80%. (Acceptable range is 34.70% to 34.90%).",
"sources": "CDI_Automation_Pilot.csv",
"justification": "In the dataset, we now focus on Column J (Claims_Denial_Before_%) to obtain the Claim Denial rate before AI implementation and Column K (Claims_Denial_After_%) to obtain the Claim Denial rate after AI implementation. By taking an average of column J, we return an average claim denial % before AI implementation of 3.1736. By taking an average of column K, we return an average claim denial % after AI implementation of 2.0692. We then must: (Average before AI - Average after AI)/Average Before AI x 100 (3.1736-2.0692)/3.1736 x 100 = 34.7996 Rounded to 34.80% per the prompt. Note to review - The claim denial percentage reflects the modeled likelihood of denial per encounter. Health systems (without AI implementation) use historical claim data to predict the likelihood of claim denial whereas the AI in this context provides the probability based on the AI-assisted documentation.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "Identifies the reduction in clinician documentation time benchmark is met.",
"sources": "CDI_Automation_Pilot.csv",
"justification": "In Criterion ID 12506 we established the reduction in clinician documentation time is 25.49%. Per the prompt the benchmark is 25.00%. 25.49% > 25.00%. Benchmark is met.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1
]
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "Identifies the coding accuracy improvement benchmark is met.",
"sources": "CDI_Automation_Pilot.csv",
"justification": "In Criterion ID 12508, we established the increase in documentation accuracy as 4.38%. Per the prompt, the benchmark is 3.00%. 4.38%>3.00%. Benchmark is met.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
2
]
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "Identifies the denial rate reduction benchmark is met.",
"sources": "CDI_Automation_Pilot.csv",
"justification": "In Criterion ID 12509, we established the percent reduction in claim denial rate as 34.80%. Per the prompt, the benchmark is 30.00%. 34.80% > 30.00%. Benchmark is met.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
3
]
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "Provides a strategy recommendation for enterprise rollout that includes one of the following: - Enterprise rollout under active governance oversight. - A controlled enterprise rollout focusing on user targeted training. - Rollout approval with a conditional clause requiring sustained throughput gains of 35% or higher.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "-Acknowledges a slight discrepancy in the internal analytics, but overall pilot performance supports continuing with an enterprise rollout under active governance oversight. The data shows consistent improvement across the KPIs, indicating readiness. Governance oversight will ensure ongoing data quality validation and accountability through the rollout. Governance = oversight that monitors the KPIs, data integrity and accountability and would be standard in this situation. -Acknowledges a slight variance from the target throughput benchmark, suggesting a clinician learning curve discrepancy as opposed to a software deficiency and thus suggests controlled enterprise rollout. The variance is likely due to a human learning curve rather than the AI being limited. A controlled rollout would allow targeted user training before a full-scale rollout. - Recommends a readiness approval with a conditional clause requiring sustained throughput gains of 35% or higher. This will tie the enterprise rollout to the KPI threshold and holds the AI provider accountable.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
4,
5,
6,
8
]
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "Calculates the percentage increase in clinician throughput as 34.21%. (Acceptable range is 34.11% to 34.31%)",
"sources": "CDI_Automation_Pilot.csv",
"justification": "By taking the average of Column D, we return an average manual document review time of 34.8988. By taking the average of Column E, we return an average document review time after AI implementation of 26.0031. Throughput gain = (Manual Review/AI Review) - 1= (34.8989/26.0031) \u2013 1 = .342 or 34.21%",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 9": {
"description": "Identifies the throughput gain benchmark is not met.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "In Criterion ID 12515 we established that the increased clinician throughput as 34.21%. Per the prompt the benchmark is 35.00%. 34.21% < 35.00%. Benchmark is not met.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
8
]
}
}
|
documents/1288/CDI_Automation_Pilot.csv
|
1,588
|
Finance
|
TPG is currently in conversations to acquire a wholesale distributor of HVAC supplies in Europe. Management has shared company projections, which the investment team has used to build out an LBO model. Before making a decision, TPG wants to model out a few scenarios to understand the return profile and carry implications for them. TPG also believes that to deliver on the execution plan proposed by management, Core Business payroll will grow 7% per year instead of 5%. The two scenarios to be modeled are:
1. Exit the business in FY28 at a 15.0x EV / EBITDA multiple
2. Exit the business in FY29 at a 16.0x EV / EBITDA multiple
For each scenario, calculate the following:
1. Net IRR for LPs
2. Net MOIC for LPs
3. Carry for the GP
4. % of total equity value created due to EBITDA growth
5. % of total equity value created due to Multiple Expansion
Assume that all capital used to acquire the company (i.e., rollover and sponsor) invests under the same terms, which are an 8% preferred return, compounded annually, and 20% carry for the GP. For reporting here, treat ‘LPs’ as all non‑carry equity holders (i.e., rollover + sponsor equity) under the same terms; GP carry is calculated separately. Use a single look-back waterfall at exit: (1) return all invested equity; (2) accrue an 8% annual preferred return (compounded annually) on invested equity; (3) compute profit to be split; (4) allocate a 5% management option pool from the profit to be split before carry; (5) allocate 20% carry to the GP and the remainder to LPs. Assume exits occur at fiscal year-end. Treat monetary amounts as USD in thousands. Round dollar values to the nearest thousand and percentages and MOICs to two decimals. For items (4)-(5), define ‘total equity value created’ as exit equity - entry equity - management options (i.e., net of the 5% management option pool).
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "For Scenario 1 (FY28 exit), calculates the Net IRR for LPs as 29.79% (acceptable range is 29.49% to 30.09%)",
"sources": "ConSup Inc Financial Model_PROMPT.xlsx",
"justification": "Solutions can be found in the Investor Return tab in the Excel Model (all in thousands) First step is to recalculate EBITDA considering a 7% increase in Core Business payroll (Assumptions tab - cell D60). Such change will decrease EBITDA by 324 in FY28 and 429 in FY29. Scenario 1: Exit in FY28 Extract new EBITDA of 10,515 (Cell L13) and multiply by the prompt provided multiple of 15x. TEV = 157,721 (per workbook). Add cash of 809 (Cell L16) and subtract debt of 9,433 (Cell L17), which includes Revolver + Senior Debt + Subordinated Debt. Equity value = 149,097. Accrues the 8% preferred return, compounded annually, on invested equity of 45,087 (cell C10) for 4 years per workbook = 61,353 Profit-to-be-split = Equity value - (Invested Equity * 1.08^4) = 149,097 - 61,353 = 87,744 Mgmt. option = 5% of 87,744 = 4,387 Carry = 20% x remaining profit (87,744 - 4,387) = 16,671 LP total value = 61,353 + (87,744 - 4,387 - 16,671) =61,353 + 66,686 = 128,039 Net IRR is computed on the cash flows {-45,087, 0, 0, 0, 128,039} (t=0 through t=4), which gives 29.79%",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "For Scenario 1 (FY28 exit), calculates the Net MOIC for LPs as 2.84x (acceptable range is 2.81x to 2.87x)",
"sources": "ConSup Inc Financial Model_PROMPT.xlsx",
"justification": "From Criterion 19957 (all in thousands) MOIC = Inflows of capital / Outflows of capital = 128,039 / 45,087 = 2.84x",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "For Scenario 1 (FY28 exit), calculates the Carry for the GP as $16,671K (acceptable range is $16,505K to $16,838K)",
"sources": "ConSup Inc Financial Model_PROMPT.xlsx",
"justification": "Solutions can be found in the Investor Return tab in the Excel Model (all in thousands) First step is to recalculate EBITDA considering a 7% increase in Core Business payroll (Assumptions tab - cell D60). Such change will decrease EBITDA by 324 in FY28 and 429 in FY29. Scenario 1: Exit in FY28 Extract new EBITDA of 10,515 (Cell L13) and multiply by the prompt provided multiple of 15x. TEV = 157,721. Add cash of 809 (Cell L16) and subtract debt of 9,433 (Cell L17), which includes Revolver + Senior Debt + Subordinated Debt. Equity value = 149,097. Accrues the 8% preferred return (compounded annually) on invested equity of 45,087 (cell C10) for 4 years per workbook = 61,353 Calculates profit to be split as Equity Value - (Preferred Equity + Interest) = 149,097 - 61,353 = 87,744 Mgmt. option = 5% of 87,744 = 4,387 Carry = 20% x remaining profit (87,744 - 4,387) = 16,671",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "For Scenario 1 (FY28 exit), calculates that 17.64% of total value is generated due to EBITDA growth (acceptable range is 17.46% to 17.81%)",
"sources": "ConSup Inc Financial Model_PROMPT.xlsx",
"justification": "All in thousands. Report this as a % of total equity value created (per prompt). First calculate the total equity value created. Equity value at exit - entry equity - management options = 149,097 (Cell L18) - 45,087 (Cell C18) - (4,387) (Cell L36) = 99,623 (details in Criterion 19957) Extract entry multiple (8.0x) from Transaction Structure tab (Cell E7) Extract entry EBITDA = 8,318 (Cell H13) To calculate value generated due to EBITDA growth = (EBITDA FY28 - EBITDA FY24) x Entry multiple = (10,515 - 8,318) x 8 = 17,572 % of value generated = 17,572 / 99,623 = 17.64%",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "For Scenario 1 (FY28 exit), calculates that 73.88% of total value is generated due to Multiple Expansion (acceptable range is 73.14% to 74.62%)",
"sources": "ConSup Inc Financial Model_PROMPT.xlsx",
"justification": "All in thousands. Report this as a % of total equity value created (per prompt). First calculate the total equity value created. Equity value at exit - entry equity - management options = 149,097 (Cell L18) - 45,087 (Cell C18) - (4,387) (Cell L36) = 99,623 (details in Criterion 19957) Extract entry multiple (8.0x) from Transaction Structure tab (Cell E7) Extract entry EBITDA = 8,318 (Cell H13) To calculate value generated due to multiple expansion = (EBITDA FY28) x (Exit multiple - Entry multiple) = (10,515) x (15 - 8) = 73,603 % of value generated = 73,603 / 99,623 = 73.88%",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "For Scenario 2 (FY29 exit), calculates the Net IRR for LPs as 27.36% (acceptable range is 27.09% to 27.63%)",
"sources": "ConSup Inc Financial Model_PROMPT.xlsx",
"justification": "Solutions can be found in the Investor Return tab in the Excel Model (all in thousands) First step is to recalculate EBITDA considering a 7% increase in Core Business payroll (Assumptions tab - cell D60). Such change will decrease EBITDA by 324 in FY28 and 429 in FY29. Scenario 2: Exit in FY29 Extract new EBITDA of 11,269 (Cell M13) and multiply by the prompt provided multiple of 16x. TEV = 180,299. Add cash of 0 (Cell M16) and subtract debt of 2,309 (Cell M17), which includes Revolver + Senior Debt + Subordinated Debt. Equity value = 177,990 Accrues the 8% preferred return, compounded annually, on invested equity of 45,087 (cell C10) for 5 years per workbook = 66,261 Profit-to-be-split = Equity value - (Invested Equity * 1.08^5) = 177,990 - 66,261 = 111,728 Mgmt. option = 5% of 111,728 = 5,586 Carry = 20% x remaining profit (111,728 - 5,586) = 21,228 LP total value = 66,261 + (111,728 - 5,586 - 21,228) = 66,261+ 84,914 = 151,175 Net IRR is computed on {-45,087, 0, 0, 0, 0, 151,175} (t=0 through t=5), which gives 27.36%",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "For Scenario 2 (FY29 exit), calculates the Net MOIC for LPs as 3.35x (acceptable range is 3.32x to 3.39x)",
"sources": "ConSup Inc Financial Model_PROMPT.xlsx",
"justification": "From Criterion 19962 (all in thousands) MOIC = Inflows of capital / Outflows of capital = 151,175 / 45,087 = 3.35x",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "For Scenario 2 (FY29 exit), calculates the Carry for the GP as $21,228K (acceptable range is $21,016K to $21,441K)",
"sources": "ConSup Inc Financial Model_PROMPT.xlsx",
"justification": "Solutions can be found in the Investor Return tab in the Excel Model (all in thousands) First step is to recalculate EBITDA considering a 7% increase in Core Business payroll (Assumptions tab - cell D60). Such change will decrease EBITDA by 324 in FY28 and 429 in FY29. Scenario 2: Exit in FY29 Extract new EBITDA of 11,269 (Cell M13) and multiply by the prompt provided multiple of 16x. TEV = 180,299. Add cash of 0 (Cell M16) and subtract debt of 2,309 (Cell M17), which includes Revolver + Senior Debt + Subordinated Debt. Equity value = 177,990 Accrues the 8% preferred return, compounded annually, on invested equity of 45,087 (cell C10) for 5 years per workbook = 66,261 Calculates profit to be split as Equity Value - (Preferred Equity + Interest) = 177,990 - 66,261 = 111,728 Mgmt. option = 5% of 111,728 = 5,586 Carry = 20% x remaining profit (111,728 - 5,586) = 21,228",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 9": {
"description": "For Scenario 2 (FY29 exit), calculates that 18.54% of total value is generated due to EBITDA growth (acceptable range is 18.35% to 18.72%)",
"sources": "ConSup Inc Financial Model_PROMPT.xlsx",
"justification": "All in thousands. Report this as a % of total equity value created (per prompt). First calculate the total equity value created. Equity value at exit - entry equity - management options = 177,990 (Cell M18) - 45,087 (Cell C18) - (5,586) (Cell M36) =127,316 (details in Criterion 19962) Extract entry multiple (8.0x) from Transaction Structure tab (Cell E7) Extract entry EBITDA = 8,318 (Cell H13) To calculate value generated due to EBITDA growth = (EBITDA FY29 - EBITDA FY24) x Entry multiple = (11,269 - 8,318) x 8 = 23,603 % of value generated = 23,603 / 127,316 = 18.54%",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 10": {
"description": "For Scenario 2 (FY29 exit), calculates that 70.81% of total value is generated due to Multiple Expansion (acceptable range is 70.10% to 71.52%)",
"sources": "ConSup Inc Financial Model_PROMPT.xlsx",
"justification": "All in thousands. Report this as a % of total equity value created (per prompt). First calculate the total equity value created. Equity value at exit - entry equity - management options = 177,990 (Cell M18) - 45,087 (Cell C18) - (5,586) (Cell M36) =127,316 (details in Criterion 19962) Extract entry multiple (8.0x) from Transaction Structure tab (Cell E7) Extract entry EBITDA = 8,318 (Cell H13) To calculate value generated due to multiple expansion = (EBITDA FY29) x (Exit multiple - Entry multiple) = 11,269 x (16 - 8) = 90,149 % of value generated = 90,149 / 127,316 = 70.81%",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
}
}
|
documents/1588/ConSup Inc Financial Model_PROMPT.xlsx
|
2,107
|
Finance
|
Mariner Cloud plc (acquirer) plans to acquire Orion Metrics AG (Target). All figures and inputs are in the CSV “Orion_Target.csv”.
Requirements:
Purchase price allocation and opening balance sheet impacts
a. Compute the following opening impacts of identifiable intangibles (in USD):
a. Annual book amortization - Technology IP
b. Annual book amortization - Customer relationships
c. After tax impacts of Inventory step-up – amortize to COGS evenly over the specified months
d. After tax NI reduction from deferred revenue fair value hair cut – recognize evenly over 12 months
b. Compute Opening fair value of net assets and goodwill (in USD)
c. Year 1 Diluted EPS (all in USD)
a. NOL benefit from 382 annual limitation
b. 338 step-up year 1 tax shield (60% of (Tech IP + Goodwill) over 15 years
c. After tax interest effect of the convertible notes (for if converted)
d. NCI share of target net income
e. Build forecasted net income to common shares
f. US GAAP diluted EPS – ignore purchased call
g. Economic diluted EPS – offset conversion shares with the purchased call up to the cap using provided average share price
h. Accretion/ dilution % vs. Acquirer standalone diluted EPS (approx. basic shares provided)
Formatting:
- 2 decimal rounding throughout
- monetary values in USD millions with two decimal places
- EPS values to cents
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "States Technology IP annual book amortization (pre-tax) is USD 16.98 million (acceptable range is USD 16.81 to 17.15)",
"sources": "Orion_Target",
"justification": "Technology IP value: relief from royalty PV in EUR using royalty 2.5%, tax 25%, WACC 12%, 10 year revenue forecast and forex rate of 1.1 is EUR 154.33 million * 1.1 = USD 169.77 million. Annual book amortization: USD 169.77 million/ 10 years useful life = USD 16.98 million",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "States Customer relationship annual book amortization (pre-tax) is USD 82.50 million (acceptable range is 81.68 to 83.33)",
"sources": "Orion_Target",
"justification": "Stated fair value of Customer relationship in Orion_Target is EUR 900 million * 1.1 (Forex rate) = USD 990.00. Annual book amortization: fair value of customer relationship divided by the stated useful life. 990/12 = USD 82.50 million",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "States inventory step up year 1 after-tax net income impact is USD 123.75 million (acceptable range 122.51 to 124.99)",
"sources": "Orion_Target",
"justification": "Given inventory step-up value EUR 150 million translated to USD. 150*1.1 = USD 165 million. Translated inventory step-up adjusted for tax = 165 * (1-0.25) = USD 123.75 million",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "States deferred revenue haircut Year-1 after-tax net income reduction = USD 44.55million (acceptable range is 44.10m to 45.00)",
"sources": "Orion_Target",
"justification": "Deferred revenue haircut: EUR 180 (Pre-close deferred revenue) * 30% (haircut) * 1.1 (forex rate) = USD 59.40 million. This deferred revenue is recognized evenly over 12 months, accordingly the USD full 59.40 million in year 1. The calculated deferred revenue haircut adjusted for tax rate: 59.40 * (1 \u2212 0.25) = USD 44.55 million.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "States opening fair value of identifiable net assets is USD 1,989.17 million (acceptable range is 1,969.28 to USD 2,009.06 )",
"sources": "Orion_Target",
"justification": "Total of all net assets: 605.00 (Other net assets, from Orion_Target) + 169.77 (Tech) + 990.00 (Customer relationship) + 165.00 (Inventory) + 59.40m (Deferred revenue opening) = USD 1,989.17 million.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1,
2,
3,
4
]
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "States Goodwill is USD 11,870.83 million (acceptable range 11,752.12 to 11,989.54m)",
"sources": "Orion_Target",
"justification": "Total consideration transferred is 70% of equity value of target in USD. Equity value of target in USD: EUR 52.50 (offer price) * 240.00 (no. of shares) * 1.10 (forex rate) = USD 13,860.00 million. Total consideration: 13,860.00 * 70% = USD 9,702.00 million NCI's 30% (1-0.7) of total target equity value: 30% * 13,860.00 = USD 4,158.00 million. USD 9,702.00 million (consideration) + USD 4,158.00 million (NCI) \u2212 USD 1,989.17 million (identifiable net assets, from 29066) = USD 11,870.83 million",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
5
]
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "States Section 382 NOL benefit is USD 13.75m (acceptable range 13.61 to 13.89)",
"sources": "Orion_Target",
"justification": "min(EUR 50 (limit), EUR 400m (available NOL)) = EUR 50 million. EUR 50 * 1.10 (fx rate) = USD 55.00 million. USD 55.00m * 25% (tax rate) = USD 13.75 million.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "States Section 338 Year-1 tax shield is USD 120.41 million (acceptable range 119.21 to 121.61)",
"sources": "Orion_Target",
"justification": "Eligible basis Y1 = 60% * (Goodwill USD 11,870.83 + Tech USD 169.77) = USD 7,224.36; annual tax amort = USD 7,224.36m \u00f7 15 = USD 481.62; tax shield = USD 481.62m * 25% = USD 120.41 million.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
6,
1
]
},
"criterion 9": {
"description": "States after-tax convertible interest effect for if-converted is USD 23.73 million (acceptable range 23.49 to 23.97)",
"sources": "Orion_Target",
"justification": "Cash leg of the total consideration is total consideration * 50%: 9,702.00*50% = USD 4,851.00 million Gross principal sized to net USD 6,171.00m (cash leg USD 4,851.00 + target net debt EUR 1,200 * 1.10 = USD 1,320.00): Gross Principal = (6,171.00 + 31.25 (issuance fees))/0.98 = USD 6,328.83; coupon @ 0.50% = USD 31.64; after-tax USD 31.64 * 0.75 = USD 23.73 million",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
6
]
},
"criterion 10": {
"description": "States NCI share of adjusted target Year-1 net income is USD 26.13 million (acceptable range 25.87 to 26.39)",
"sources": "Orion_Target",
"justification": "Target NI is EUR 300m * 1.10 = USD 330.00; less sub-level PPA after-tax (Tech IP amortization 12.73 (16.98*0.75)) + Customer relationship amortization 61.88 (82.5*0.75) + inventory step-up after tax 123.75 (165*0.75) + deferred revenue haircut 44.55 (59.40*0.75) = USD 242.91. Adjusted target NI USD 87.09; NCI 30% * USD 87.09 = USD 26.13 million",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1,
2,
3,
4
]
},
"criterion 11": {
"description": "States Year-1 net income to common (basic) is USD 1,371.39 (acceptable range 1,357.68 to 1,385.10)",
"sources": "Orion_Target",
"justification": "USD 1,200.00 (acquirer net income) + USD 60.97 (controlling share of adjusted target; NCI share/0.3*0.7; 26.13/0.3*0.7) \u2212 USD 23.73 (after-tax convert, from 29075) + USD 13.75 (from 29073) + USD 120.41 = USD 1,371.39 million.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
8,
9,
10
]
},
"criterion 12": {
"description": "States US GAAP diluted EPS is USD 1.00 (acceptable range 0.99 to 1.01)",
"sources": "Orion_Target",
"justification": "Stock % of the total consideration transferred: 9,702.00 (from 29066) * 0.50 = USD 4,851.00 million. Total stock consideration / acquirer share price. 4,851.00m/ 25.00 = 194.04 million shares (shares issued for stock leg) Diluted NI USD 1,371.39 (from 29077) + USD 23.73 (from 29075) = USD 1,395.12 Diluted shares = 1000 (acquirer shares)+194.04 (shares issued for stock leg) + 202.52 (conversion shares: Gross principal/ conversion price: 6,328.83/31.25) = 1,396.56 Diluted EPS: USD 1,395.12/ 1,396.56 = USD 1.00.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
9,
11,
5
]
},
"criterion 13": {
"description": "States Economic diluted EPS is USD 1.15 (acceptable range 1.14 to 1.16)",
"sources": "Orion_Target",
"justification": "Stock % of the total consideration transferred: 9,702.00 (from 29066) * 0.50 = USD 4,851.00 million. Total stock consideration / acquirer share price. 4,851.00m/ 25.00 = 194.04 million shares (shares issued for stock leg) Purchased call fully offsets convert shares at average price USD 40.00 \u2264 USD 45.00 cap; diluted NI = basic USD 1,371.39 (from 29077); diluted shares = basic 1,194.04 (1000 acquirer + 194.04 shares from stock leg); USD 1,371.39/ 1,194.04 = USD 1.15 (to cents).",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
11,
5
]
},
"criterion 14": {
"description": "States dilution vs standalone (US GAAP) is \u221216.67% (acceptable range is \u221217.67% to \u221215.67%)",
"sources": "Orion_Target",
"justification": "Standalone EPS = USD 1.20 (= USD 1,200.00 (acquirer net income) \u00f7 1,000.00). (USD 1.00 \u00f7 USD 1.20) \u2212 1 = \u221216.67%.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
12
]
},
"criterion 15": {
"description": "States dilution vs standalone (Economic) = \u22124.17% (acceptable range \u22125.17% to \u22123.17%)",
"sources": "Orion_Target",
"justification": "Economic diluted EPS / Standalone EPS (USD 1.15 \u00f7 USD 1.20 (1,200/1000)) \u2212 1 = \u22124.17%.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
13
]
}
}
|
documents/2107/Orion_Target.csv
|
2,108
|
Finance
|
Using Nike Inc’s 2025 Form 10-K and the assumptions below, conduct a 3 year DCF analysis, and calculate: Nike’s Enterprise Value based on the 3-year DCF, Enterprise Value / Revenue (using 2025 Revenue) and Enterprise Value / EBITDA (using 2025 EBITDA), Equity Value (using 2025 Net Debt) and Equity Value per Share (using 2025 Total Diluted Shares Outstanding). Note that all years referenced refer to Nike's Fiscal Year which ends on May 31 of the relevant year (FY 2025 ended on May 31, 2025)
For assumptions use the following:
* 2023- 2025 Revenue CAGR for annual revenue growth
* 2025 values for:
* EBIT Margin (Using EBIT as defined on page 33 of the 10-K)
* Effective Tax Rate (as identified in form 10-K)
* D&A / Revenue
* CapEx / Revenue
* Change in NWC / Revenue
* Year 0 as 2025 Revenue (valuation date of May 31, 2025)
* WACC = 6.88%
* Terminal Growth Rate = 3.80%
* For Net Debt, include notes payable and also current and non-current lease liabilities within debt. Assume the relevant cash and cash equivalents are equal to $9,151 at May 31, 2025 (per the 10-K)
From yahoo we can see that Nike’s market data at close on May 31, 2025 is as follows:
* EV / Revenue = 1.90x
* EV / EBITDA = 15.84
* Closing Share Price = $60.59
-If the calculated values of EV / Revenue, EV / EBITDA and Equity per Share are greater by 10% or more of their respective market data, then comment “Nike appears undervalued by the market”
-If the calculated values of EV / Revenue, EV / EBITDA and Equity per Share are
equal to or within 90-110% of their respective market data, then comment “Nike appears fairly valued by the market”
-If the calculated values of EV / Revenue, EV / EBITDA and Equity per Share are lesser by 10% or more of their respective market data, then comment “Nike appears overvalued by the market”
-In all other cases comment “further investigation is needed for your model inputs”
Round all dollar answers to the nearest million and all other calculations (including equity per share) to two decimals. Do not round intermediate steps. Show your work.
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "Calculate Nike's Enterprise Value as $104,848M (Acceptable range is $103,799M to $105,896M)",
"sources": "Nike-Inc-2025 Form-10K.pdf",
"justification": "EV = PV of Y1_FCF + PV of Y2_FCF + PV of Y3_FCF + PV of TV = rounds to $104,848M where PV is calculated as YT_FCF / (1 + WACC)^T Y1_FCF = $3,818M Y2_FCF = $3,630M Y3_FCF = $3,452M TV = $116,320M",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "Calculate Nike's Enterprise Value / Revenue as 2.26x (Acceptable range is 2.23 to 2.29)",
"sources": "Nike-Inc-2025 Form-10K.pdf",
"justification": "EV / Revenue = rounds to 2.26 EV = $104,848M 2025 Revenue = $46,309M",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1
]
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "Calculate Nike's Enterprise Value / EBITDA as 23.03 (Acceptable range is 22.80 to 23.26)",
"sources": "Nike-Inc-2025 Form-10K.pdf",
"justification": "EV / EBITDA = rounds to 23.03 EV = $104,848M 2025 EBITDA = EBIT + D&A = $3,778M + $775M = $4,553M",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1
]
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "Calculate Nike's Equity Value as $102,981M (Acceptable range is $101,951M to $104,010M)",
"sources": "Nike-Inc-2025 Form-10K.pdf",
"justification": "Equity Value = EV - 2025 Net Debt = $102,981M EV = $104,848M 2025 Net Debt = 2025 Total Debt - (2025 Cash and equivalents (Cash and equivalents = $9,151M as of May 31, 2025) + 2025 Short-term investments) = $1,867M where Total Debt = Current Portion of Long Term Debt + Notes Payable + Current Portion of Operating lease liabilities + Long Term Debt + Operating Lease Liabilities (Non Current)",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1
]
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "Calculate Nike's Equity per Share as $69.23 (Acceptable range is $68.53 to $69.92)",
"sources": "Nike-Inc-2025 Form-10K.pdf",
"justification": "Equity per Share = Equity Value / 2025 Total Diluted Shares Outstanding = rounds to $69.23 Equity Value = $102,981M 2025 Total Diluted Shares Outstanding = 1,487.6M",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
4
]
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "Comment that 'Nike appears undervalued by the market'",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Comment that 'Nike appears undervalued by the market' as: -calculated EV / Revenue (2.26) is greater by 10% or more when compared to the yahoo market data for EV / Revenue (1.9); and -calculated EV / EBITDA (23.03) is greater by 10% or more when compared to the yahoo market data for EV / EBITDA (15.84); and -calculated Equity per Share ($69.23) is greater by 10% or more when compared to Nike's closing price as of 30th May 2025 ($60.59)",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
2,
3,
5
]
}
}
|
documents/2108/Nike-Inc-2025 Form-10K .pdf
|
2,120
|
Finance
|
To allocate funds to relatively low-risk investments while still achieving a decent return, refer to the ‘S&P500’ and ‘Nikkei225’ excel source files that contain the closing ETF prices from Yahoo Finance for these respective indexes for the five years leading up to April 15th, 2025.
Please identify the largest overall peak-to-trough drawdown (in % terms) within the five-year dataset for each index. For each largest drawdown movement from requested indices, please tell me how many calendar days the duration of each period with the largest drawdown movements are along with their start and end dates.
Please round all percentage values to two decimal places and round any day counts to the nearest whole number. For dates, use the format: MM/DD/YYYY.
Lastly, state which of the two indices should be avoided on account of it having the highest daily volatility during the largest drawdown period determined above.
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "Calculates that the largest drawdown for the S&P 500 in the five years leading up to 04/15/2025 is -25.36% (acceptable range is -25.61% to -25.11%)",
"sources": "S&P500.pdf",
"justification": "The prompt asks for what the percentage drawdown was for the largest drawdown. From the 'S&P500' source file, we can find out that the worst drawdown for the S&P 500 happened from 01/03/2022, when the price was $477.71 to 10/12/2022, when the price fell to $356.56. Therefore, with this information we can calculate the % drawdown by: ($356.56 - $477.71) / $477.71 * 100 : -25.36%.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "Determines that the largest drawdown period for the S&P 500 in the five years leading up to 04/15/2025 began on 01/03/2022 (acceptable value is 01/03/2022)",
"sources": "S&P500.pdf",
"justification": "The prompt asks for the start date of the largest drawdown. From the 'S&P500' source file, we can find out that the worst drawdown for the S&P 500 happened from 01/03/2022, when the price was $477.71 to 10/12/2022, when the price fell to $356.56.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "Determines that the largest drawdown period for the S&P 500 in the five years leading up to 04/15/2025 ended on 10/12/2022 (acceptable value is 10/12/2022)",
"sources": "S&P500.pdf",
"justification": "The prompt asks for the end date of the largest drawdown. From the 'S&P500' source file, we can find out that the worst drawdown for the S&P 500 happened from 01/03/2022, when the price was $477.71 to 10/12/2022, when the price fell to $356.56.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "Calculates that the largest drawdown for the S&P 500 in the five years leading up to 04/15/2025 lasted 282 calendar days (acceptable range is 279 calendar days to 285 calendar days)",
"sources": "S&P500.pdf",
"justification": "The prompt asks for the duration of the largest drawdown. From the 'S&P500' source file, we can find out that the worst drawdown for the S&P 500 happened from 01/03/2022, when the price was $477.71 to 10/12/2022, when the price fell to $356.56. Therefore, with this information we can calculate the number of calendar days this took: 10/12/2022 \u2013 01/03/2022: 282 calendar days.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
2,
3
]
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "Calculates that the largest drawdown for the Nikkei225 in the five years leading up to 04/15/2025 is -26.26% (acceptable range is -26.52% to -26.00%)",
"sources": "Nikkei225.pdf",
"justification": "From the 'Nikkei225' source file, we can find out that the worst drawdown for the Nikkei225 happened from 07/11/2024, when the price was \u00a542,224.02 to 04/07/2025, when the price fell to \u00a531,136.58. Therefore, with this information we can calculate the % drawdown by: (\u00a531,136.58 - \u00a542,224.02) /\u00a542,224.021 * 100 : -26.26%.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "Determines that the largest drawdown period for the Nikkei225 in the five years leading up to 04/15/2025 began on 07/11/2024 (acceptable value is 07/11/2024)",
"sources": "Nikkei225.pdf",
"justification": "The prompt asks for the start date of the largest drawdown. From the 'Nikkei225' source file, we can find out that the worst drawdown for the Nikkei225 happened from 07/11/2024, when the price was \u00a542,224.02 to 04/07/2025, when the price fell to \u00a531,136.58.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "Determines that the largest drawdown period for the Nikkei225 in the five years leading up to 04/15/2025 ended on 04/07/2025 (acceptable value is 04/07/2025)",
"sources": "Nikkei225.pdf",
"justification": "The prompt asks for the end date of the largest drawdown. From the 'Nikkei225' source file, we can find out that the worst drawdown for the Nikkei225 happened from 07/11/2024, when the price was \u00a542,224.02 to 04/07/2025, when the price fell to \u00a531,136.58.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "Calculates that the largest drawdown for the Nikkei225 in the five years leading up to 04/15/2025 lasted 270 calendar days (acceptable range is 267 calendar days to 273 calendar days)",
"sources": "Nikkei225.pdf",
"justification": "The prompt asks for the duration of the largest drawdown. From the 'Nikkei225' source file, we can find out that the worst drawdown for the Nikkei225 happened from 07/11/2024, when the price was \u00a542,224.02 to 04/07/2025, when the price fell to \u00a531,136.58. Therefore, with this information we can calculate the number of calendar days this took: 04/07/2025 \u2013 07/11/2024: 270 calendar days.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
6,
7
]
},
"criterion 9": {
"description": "Concludes that the Nikkei225 is the index that should be avoided based on the highest daily volatility during the largest drawdown period in the five years leading up to 04/15/2025",
"sources": "S&P500.pdf, Nikkei225.pdf",
"justification": "The prompt asks for the one index that we need to avoid for low-risk investments based on the highest volatility. From the 'S&P500' source file, we can find out that the worst drawdown for the S&P 500 happened from 01/03/2022, when the price was $477.71 to 10/12/2022, when the price fell to $356.56. From the 'Nikkei225' source file, we can find out that the worst drawdown for the Nikkei225 happened from 07/11/2024, when the price was \u00a542,224.02 to 04/07/2025, when the price fell to \u00a531,136.58. The excel formula 'STDEV.S' on inter-day returns allows us to get the daily volatility for each index during the worst drawdown period throughout five years until 04/15/2025: S&P 500: 1.50% (acceptable range is 1.48% to 1.51%), Nikkei225: 1.93% (acceptable range is 1.91% to 1.93%) In conclusion, we can see that the Nikkei225 had the highest volatility.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
2,
3,
6,
7
]
}
}
|
documents/2120/Nikkei225.pdf
documents/2120/S&P500.pdf
|
2,121
|
Finance
|
Investment Banking firm BLT is advising fund ART with a whole loan bid for a pool of reperforming ("RPL") and nonperforming ("NPL") non-agency mortgage loans. The loans are segmented across six different sub-pools. ART has shared with BLT the data tape for the pool and has requested assistance with the following diligence:
1. Calculate the Weighted Average (by Total Balance) Bankruptcy Date for bankruptcy flagged loans. Use Bankruptcy Flag and BK Filing Date fields.
2. Calculate the concentration of bankruptcy flagged loans where the Borrower filed for bankruptcy within 5 years of the loan's origination date. Use Bankruptcy Flag field, BK Filing Date, and Origination or Note Date fields.
3. Calculate the Weighted Average Market Value (by Total Balance) for Pools 1 through 3 based on the loan's current cash flow and a 10% discount rate. Use Current Maturity Date, Current P&I, Due Date, and Total Balance fields. Market Value should be expressed as a percentage of Total Balance for task item #3.
4. Calculate the aggregate loan balance write-off at maturity for Pools 1 through 3 based on current contracted terms. Use Current Maturity Date, Current P&I, Due Date, Current Interest Rate %, and Total Balance fields.
5. Calculate the implied borrowing base for Pools 1 through 3 based on an 80% advance rate to market value. Market value should be based on the loan's current cash flow and a 10% discount rate. Use Current Maturity Date, Current P&I, Due Date, and Total Balance fields. Market Value should be expressed as a nominal dollar amount for task item #5.
Format requirements:
- Express all dollar amounts in whole dollars, no decimal places
- Express percentages to 2 decimal places
- Express dates in MM/DD/YYYY format
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "Calculates the Weighted Average (by Total Balance) Bankruptcy Date for bankruptcy flagged loans as 12/13/2017. (Acceptable range 11/13/2017 to 1/13/2018).",
"sources": "RPL NPL Tape_Trunc_v10.12.25 - NPL Tape-4.CSV",
"justification": "Bankruptcy Filing Date = (Sum of each bankruptcy filing date \u00d7 corresponding loan balance) \u00f7 (Sum of all bankruptcy loan balances) = SUMPRODUCT(--(Bankruptcy Flag = 'Y'), Total Balance, BK Filing Date) / SUMPRODUCT(--(Bankruptcy Flag = 'Y'), Total Balance) = 119,546,781,682.19 / 2,774,807.19 = 43,083 = 12/13/2017. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Imkp6ZRZJyYXiF0zvPFeCJdVsthbuCP6hQHzfF-BxQw/edit?usp=sharing",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "Calculates the concentration of bankruptcy flagged loans where the Borrower filed for bankruptcy within 5 years of the loan's origination date as 5.42%. (Acceptable range 5.37% to 5.47%).",
"sources": "RPL NPL Tape_Trunc_v10.12.25 - NPL Tape-4.CSV",
"justification": "Concentration (%) = (Sum of balances for loans with bankruptcy filed within 5 years of origination) \u00f7 (Sum of all bankruptcy loan balances) \u00d7 100 = SUMPRODUCT(--(Bankruptcy Flag = 'Y'), --(BK Date within 5 Flag = 'Y'), Total Balance) / SUMPRODUCT(--(Bankruptcy Flag = 'Y'), Total Balance) = $150,404.14 / $2,774,807.19 = 5.42% BK Date within 5 Flag = =if(BK Filing Date = '', 0, if( edate ( Origination or Note Date, 5*12) < BK Filing Date, 0, 1)) https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Imkp6ZRZJyYXiF0zvPFeCJdVsthbuCP6hQHzfF-BxQw/edit?usp=sharing",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "Calculates the Weighted Average Market Value (by Total Balance) for Pools 1 through 3 as 60.42%. (Acceptable range 59.81% to 61.02%).",
"sources": "RPL NPL Tape_Trunc_v10.12.25 - NPL Tape-4.CSV",
"justification": "Weighted Market Value (%) = (Sum of each loan's market value percentage \u00d7 loan balance) \u00f7 (Sum of all loan balances in Pools 1-3) = SUMPRODUCT( --(Pool 1-3 Flag = 1), Market Value as % of Total Balance, Total Balance) / SUMPRODUCT( --(Pool 1-3 Flag = 1), Total Balance) = 9,636,472.58 / 15,950,140.11 = 60.42%. Pool 1-3 Flag = if (or (Pool = 'Pool 1: Reperforming', Pool = 'Pool 2: Reperforming', Pool = 'Pool 3: Core Payers'), 1, 0) Market Value as % of Total Balance = PV(10%/12, Rem Term, -Current P&I,0)/ Total Balance Rem Term = DATEDIF(Due Date, Current Maturity Date,'m') https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Imkp6ZRZJyYXiF0zvPFeCJdVsthbuCP6hQHzfF-BxQw/edit?usp=sharing",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "Calculates the aggregate loan balance write-off at maturity for Pools 1 through 3 as $14,436,180. (Acceptable range $14,291,818 to $14,580,541).",
"sources": "RPL NPL Tape_Trunc_v10.12.25 - NPL Tape-4.CSV",
"justification": "Aggregate Write-off = Sum of (Unpaid loan balance at maturity) across all loans in Pools 1-3 Where unpaid balance at maturity is the future outstanding balance after scheduled payments Formula = SUMPRODUCT( --(Pool 1-3 Flag = 1), Loan Balance Write-off at Maturity) = $14,436,180. Pool 1-3 Flag = if (or (Pool = 'Pool 1: Reperforming', Pool = 'Pool 2: Reperforming', Pool = 'Pool 3: Core Payers'), 1, 0) Loan balance write-off at maturity = unpaid balance at maturity. Unpaid balance at maturity = MAX(-FV(Current Interest Rate %/1200, Rem Term, -Current P&I, Total Balance, 0), 0). Rem Term = DATEDIF(Due Date, Current Maturity Date,'m') https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Imkp6ZRZJyYXiF0zvPFeCJdVsthbuCP6hQHzfF-BxQw/edit?usp=sharing",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "Calculates the implied borrowing base for Pools 1 through 3 as $7,709,178. (Acceptable range $7,632,086 to $7,786,270).",
"sources": "RPL NPL Tape_Trunc_v10.12.25 - NPL Tape-4.CSV",
"justification": "Borrowing Base = Sum of (Loan market value \u00d7 advance rate) across all loans in Pools 1-3 Formula = SUMPRODUCT( --(Pool 1-3 Flag = 1), Borrowing Base) = $7,709,178. Pool 1-3 Flag = if (or (Pool = 'Pool 1: Reperforming', Pool = 'Pool 2: Reperforming', Pool = 'Pool 3: Core Payers'), 1, 0). Borrowing Base = Market Value x Advance Rate. Market Value = PV(10%/12, Rem Term, -Current P&I,0) Advance Rate = 80% per prompt. Rem Term = DATEDIF(Due Date, Current Maturity Date,'m') https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Imkp6ZRZJyYXiF0zvPFeCJdVsthbuCP6hQHzfF-BxQw/edit?usp=sharing",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
}
}
|
documents/2121/RPL NPL Tape_Trunc_v10.12.25 - NPL Tape-4.csv
|
2,145
|
Finance
|
We are doing Discounted Cash Flow Analysis (“DCF”) on Coupang (NYSE: CPNG) as they are a competitor to one of our clients.
To complete the analysis, please first identify the Weighted Average Cost of Capital (“WACC”) and beta we need to use for the DCF based on the assumptions below.
Assumptions:
• When calculating capital structure weights for WACC (Debt to Total Capitalization and Equity to Total Capitalization), use the 2024 debt amount (short-term + long-term). Exclude leases from debt. For the equity portion, use market capitalization as of 12/31/2024.
• For Risk Free Rate, use the 10-year Treasury Note median yield rate for the most recently completed Treasury auction as of May 6th, 2025. Refer to the attached Treasury.pdf file.
• Equity Risk Premium is 7.5%.
• Please use Coupang’s April 2023 Term Loan interest rate for cost of debt. Use the online search for the data (10-K, for the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2024).
• For beta, please compare the Coupang’s 2024 daily returns to the SPDR S&P 500 ETF (SPY) index and use the slope function in Excel to calculate the beta.
• Tax Rate is 25%.
Please also provide the following inputs that went into the WACC calculation: Debt amount, Market Capitalization, Debt to Total Capitalization %, Equity to Total Capitalization %, Risk-Free Rate, Cost of Equity, Cost of Debt, and After-Tax Cost of Debt.
Refer to the Beta.pdf file that contains the closing stock prices from Yahoo Finance for Coupang and the SPDR S&P 500 ETF (SPY) index for the calendar year 2024. Dates are in the format: Month/Day/Year.
Round all percentage values to one decimal place and round all share prices to two decimal places. For beta, please round to two decimal places. Round the debt amount and market capitalization to two decimal places, and present the values in billions.
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "Calculates that Coupang's beta is 0.61 (acceptable range is 0.60 to 0.62)",
"sources": "Beta.pdf",
"justification": "Based on the 'Beta.pdf' source file, we can calculate CPNG stock returns and SPY returns as below. CPNG returns -1.6% 0.5% 1.2% . . . -1.3% -1.3% -1.1% SPY returns -0.8% -0.3% 0.1% . . . -1.1% -1.1% -0.4% Calculating slope using CPNG returns as the dependent variable and SPY returns as the independent variable, you get Coupang's beta of 0.608.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "Calculates that Coupang's 2024 total debt amount is $1.53 billion (acceptable range is $1.51 billion to $1.55 billion)",
"sources": "Online Search (10-K)",
"justification": "The prompt asks for Coupang's debt amount that went into the WACC calculation. As provided in https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001834584/6f1355c4-a540-48c5-8285-c3b3ba6ca592.pdf (pg 66), Coupang's 2024 Coupang's total debt amount = $479 million Short-term borrowings + $66 million Current portion of long-term debt + $988 million Long-term debt = $1.53 billion",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "Determines that Coupang's market capitalization as of 12/31/2024 is $40.51 billion (acceptable range is $40.10 billion to $40.92 billion)",
"sources": "Online Search",
"justification": "The prompt asks for Coupang's market capitalization as of 12/31/2024. Coupang's market cap is $40.51 billion at the end of 2024 as stated in https://companiesmarketcap.com/coupang/marketcap/#google_vignette.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "Calculates that Coupang's Debt to Total Capitalization is 3.6% (acceptable range is 3.5% to 3.7%)",
"sources": "",
"justification": "The prompt asks for Coupang's Debt to Total Capitalization. Debt to Total Capitalization = Debt / (Debt + Equity) = $1.53 / ($1.53 + $40.51) = 3.6% (acceptable range is 3.5% to 3.7%)",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
2,
3
]
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "Calculates that Coupang's Equity to Total Capitalization is 96.4% (acceptable range is 95.4% to 97.4%)",
"sources": "",
"justification": "The prompt asks for Coupang's Equity to Total Capitalization. Equity to Total Capitalization = Equity / (Debt + Equity) = $40.51 / ($1.53 + $40.51) = 96.4%",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
2,
3
]
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "Determines that the Risk-Free Rate is 4.3% (acceptable value is 4.3%)",
"sources": "Treasury.pdf",
"justification": "The prompt asks for the Risk-Free Rate used in the WACC Calculation. From the 'Treasury.pdf' source file, we can figure out that the Risk-Free Rate = 4.281% which is 4.3% (acceptable value is 4.3%) when rounded based on prompt's ask.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "Calculates that Coupang's Cost of Equity is 8.9% (acceptable range is 8.8% to 9.0%)",
"sources": "",
"justification": "The prompt asks for Coupang's Cost of Equity. Cost of Equity = Risk Free Rate + (Equity Risk Premium x Beta) = 4.281% + (7.5% per prompt x 0.61) = 8.9%",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1,
6
]
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "Determines that Coupang's Cost of Debt is 6.8% (acceptable value is 6.8%)",
"sources": "Online Search (10-K)",
"justification": "The prompt asks for Coupang's Cost of Debt. Coupang's April 2023 Term Loan interest rate is 6.76% as stated in https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001834584/6f1355c4-a540-48c5-8285-c3b3ba6ca592.pdf (pg 85).",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 9": {
"description": "Calculates that Coupang's After-Tax Cost of Debt is 5.1% (acceptable range is 5.0% to 5.2%)",
"sources": "",
"justification": "After-Tax Cost of Debt = Cost of Debt x (1 \u2013 Tax Rate) = 6.8% x (1 \u2013 25%) = 5.1%",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
8
]
},
"criterion 10": {
"description": "Calculates that Coupang's WACC is 8.8% (acceptable range is 8.7% to 8.9%)",
"sources": "",
"justification": "The prompt asks for Coupang's WACC. WACC = (Cost of Equity x Equity to Total Capitalization %) + (After-Tax Cost of Debt x Debt to Total Capitalization %) = (8.9% x 96.4%) + (5.1% x 3.6%) = 8.8%",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
4,
5,
7,
9
]
}
}
|
documents/2145/Beta.pdf
documents/2145/Treasury.pdf
|
2,157
|
Finance
|
A well-known U.S. PE firm is evaluating a leveraged buyout (LBO) of Summit Outdoor Gear, Inc. Build a 5-year LBO model and answer six questions. Assumptions are provided in the attached CSV (LBO_Assumption.csv); do not restate any assumption that is present in the CSV—reference it directly.
Cash flow priority and debt logic:
1. Pay interest and taxes first (taxes on EBT, i.e., after interest)
2. Mandatory amortization = 10% of beginning debt each year
3. Optional repayments = 50% of residual free cash flow after interest, taxes, and mandatory amortization
4. Dividends = 50% of the residual cash after optional repayments
5. Add-on acquisition ($10M in Year 3) is funded from operating cash (not new equity)
6. Interest expense each year is computed on average debt; rates: Years 1–3 = 8%, Years 4–5 = 9%
7. Refinancing: at the end of Year 3 the company refinances; a one-time refinancing fee equal to 2% of ending Year 3 debt must be deducted from Year 4 free cash flow and is explicitly not tax-deductible (i.e., it does not reduce taxable income).
8. Dividend threshold (minimum cash policy): dividends can only be paid if post-debt-service residual free cash flow exceeds $2.0M; when this condition is met, dividends equal 50% of (residual − $2.0M); otherwise, dividends are zero.
Required outputs (show work, formulas, and intermediate steps):
1. Total equity investment at acquisition
2. Year 5 EBITDA
3. Ending debt at Year 5
4. Enterprise Value (EV) at exit
5. Equity value at exit
6. Equity MOIC and IRR over 5 years (use equity cash flows; include any interim dividends)
Rounding & tolerance:
- Units: millions of USD ($M)
- Monetary answers: round to two decimals; state tolerance as ±1% of the stated value
- Percentages (IRR): round to one decimal place; state tolerance as ±0.2 percentage points
- MOIC: round to two decimals; tolerance ±0.02×
- Use dynamic interest on average debt and taxes on EBT
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "For question 1, states that total equity investment required at acquisition is $40.00M (with a tolerance range between $39.60M and $40.40M).",
"sources": "LBO_Assumption.csv",
"justification": "The acquisition is financed with 60% debt and 40% equity of the $100.00M purchase price. Formula: Equity Investment = Purchase Price \u00d7 Equity % Equity Investment = 100.00 \u00d7 40% = 40.00 Hence, the private equity sponsor contributes $40.00M of equity at closing, while the remaining $60.00M is financed with debt.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "For question 2, state that Summit's projected EBITDA in Year 5 is $15.19M (with an acceptable answer range between $15.04M and $15.34M).",
"sources": "LBO_Assumption.csv",
"justification": "Year 1 revenue starts at $50.00M and grows by 5% per year for four years. Formula for revenue growth: Revenue_Y5 = 50.00 \u00d7 (1.05^4) Revenue_Y5 = 50.00 \u00d7 1.21550625 = 60.78M With an EBITDA margin of 25%, EBITDA_Y5 = 60.78 \u00d7 25% = 15.19M Thus, projected Year 5 EBITDA equals $15.19M.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "States that ending debt balance at the end of Year 5 is $34.56M (with a tolerance range between $34.21M and $34.91M).",
"sources": "LBO_Assumption.csv",
"justification": "Assumptions used: Opening debt Y1 = 60.00; amortization = 10% of beginning debt each year; interest rate = 8% for Y1\u2013Y3 and 9% for Y4\u2013Y5; revenue Y1 = 50.00 and grows 5% annually; EBITDA margin = 25%; depreciation = 3% of revenue; CapEx = 4% of revenue; \u0394NWC = 2% of revenue; tax rate = 25% on EBT; refinancing fee = 2% of Year 3 ending debt (non-deductible); minimum cash threshold for dividends = $2.0M; optional repayment = max(0, 50% of post-debt-service residual FCF). Year-by-year calculations: \u2022 Year 1: Revenue 50.00; EBITDA 12.50; Depreciation 1.50 \u2192 EBIT = 12.50 \u2212 1.50 = 11.00. Beginning debt 60.00; Mandatory amort = 60.00\u00d70.10 = 6.00. Average debt = (60.00 + 54.00)/2 = 57.00; Interest = 57.00\u00d70.08 = 4.56. EBT = 11.00 \u2212 4.56 = 6.44; Tax = 6.44\u00d70.25 = 1.61. CapEx = 50.00\u00d70.04 = 2.00; \u0394NWC = 50.00\u00d70.02 = 1.00. FCF_pre_addon = 12.50 \u2212 2.00 \u2212 1.00 \u2212 1.61 = 7.89. Residual after debt service = 7.89 \u2212 4.56 \u2212 6.00 = \u22122.67 \u2192 Optional = 0.00. Ending debt = 60.00 \u2212 6.00 = 54.00. \u2022 Year 2: Revenue 52.50; EBITDA 13.12; Depreciation 1.58 \u2192 EBIT 11.55. Beginning debt 54.00; Mandatory amort 5.40. Average debt 51.30; Interest 4.10. EBT 7.45; Tax 1.86. CapEx 2.10; \u0394NWC 1.05. FCF_pre_addon = 13.12 \u2212 2.10 \u2212 1.05 \u2212 1.86 = 8.11. Residual = 8.11 \u2212 4.10 \u2212 5.40 = \u22121.39 \u2192 Optional = 0.00. Ending debt = 54.00 \u2212 5.40 = 48.60. \u2022 Year 3: Revenue 55.13; EBITDA 13.78; Depreciation 1.65 \u2192 EBIT 12.13. Beginning debt 48.60; Mandatory amort 4.86. Average debt 46.17; Interest 3.69. EBT 8.44; Tax 2.11. CapEx 2.21; \u0394NWC 1.10. FCF_pre_addon = 13.78 \u2212 2.21 \u2212 1.10 \u2212 2.11 = 8.36. Add-on = 10.00 \u2192 FCF_after_addon = \u22121.64. Residual = \u22121.64 \u2212 3.69 \u2212 4.86 = \u221210.19 \u2192 Optional = 0.00. Ending debt = 48.60 \u2212 4.86 = 43.74. \u2022 Year 4: Revenue 57.88; EBITDA 14.47; Depreciation 1.74 \u2192 EBIT 12.73. Beginning debt 43.74; Mandatory amort 4.37. Average debt 41.56; Interest 3.74. Refinancing fee = 43.74\u00d70.02 = 0.87 (deducted from FCF, not tax). EBT 8.99; Tax 2.25. CapEx 2.32; \u0394NWC 1.16. FCF_pre_addon = 14.47 \u2212 2.32 \u2212 1.16 \u2212 2.25 = 8.74. Adjusted FCF (after fee) = 8.74 \u2212 0.87 = 7.87. Residual = 7.87 \u2212 3.74 \u2212 4.37 = \u22120.24 \u2192 Optional = 0.00. Ending debt = 43.74 \u2212 4.37 = 39.37. \u2022 Year 5: Revenue 60.78; EBITDA 15.19; Depreciation 1.82 \u2192 EBIT 13.37. Beginning debt 39.37; Mandatory amort 3.94. Average debt 37.40; Interest 3.37. EBT 10.00; Tax 2.50. CapEx 2.43; \u0394NWC 1.22. FCF_pre_addon = 15.19 \u2212 2.43 \u2212 1.22 \u2212 2.50 = 9.04. Residual = 9.04 \u2212 3.37 \u2212 3.94 = 1.73 \u2192 Optional repayment = 1.73\u00d70.50 = 0.86. Ending debt = 39.37 \u2212 3.94 \u2212 0.86 = 34.56.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "For question 4, states that the Enterprise Value (EV) at exit is $106.36M (with a tolerance range between $105.30M and $107.42M).",
"sources": "LBO_Assumption.csv",
"justification": "Assumptions used: Exit valuation multiple = 7.0\u00d7 EV/EBITDA; EBITDA_Y5 = 60.78 \u00d7 25% = 15.19M. Determine Exit Multiple: Given assumption of 7.0\u00d7 EV/EBITDA. Compute Enterprise Value: Multiply Year 5 EBITDA by the exit multiple. Formula: EV_Exit = EBITDA_Y5 \u00d7 Exit Multiple = 15.19 \u00d7 7.0 = 106.36M.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
2
]
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "For question 5, the model states that equity value upon exit after debt repayment is $71.80M (with a tolerance range between $71.08M and $72.52M).",
"sources": "LBO_Assumption.csv",
"justification": "The equity value is the difference between the enterprise value and the remaining debt at exit. Formula: Equity_Exit = EV_Exit - Debt_Remaining Equity_Exit = 106.36 - 34.56 = 71.8M Thus, the residual proceeds available to the equity investors at exit are $71.80M.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
4,
3
]
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "States that the MOIC is 1.79\u00d7 (with a tolerance range between 1.77\u00d7 and 1.81\u00d7)",
"sources": "LBO_Assumption.csv",
"justification": "Initial equity investment: $40.00M Dividend policy: Dividends_t = IF(Residual_t > 2.0, (Residual_t \u2212 2.0) \u00d7 50%, 0) Year 4: Residual = -0.24 (< 2.0 threshold) \u2192 Dividends\u2084 = 0.00 Year 5: Residual = 1.73 (< 2.0 threshold) \u2192 Dividends\u2085 = 0.00 Total Dividends = 0.00 Equity value at exit: $71.80M Formulas and calculations: Total Returned = Equity_Exit + Total Dividends Total Returned = 71.80 + 0.00 = 71.80 MOIC = Total Returned / Initial Equity MOIC = 71.80 / 40.00 = 1.79\u00d7",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1,
5
]
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "States that the IRR is 12.4% (with a tolerance range between 12.2% and 12.6%).",
"sources": "LBO_Assumption.csv",
"justification": "Initial equity investment: $40.00M Dividend policy: Dividends_t = IF(Residual_t > 2.0, (Residual_t \u2212 2.0) \u00d7 50%, 0) Year 4: Residual = -0.24 (< 2.0 threshold) \u2192 Dividends\u2084 = 0.00 Year 5: Residual = 1.73 (< 2.0 threshold) \u2192 Dividends\u2085 = 0.00 Total Dividends = 0.00 Equity value at exit: $71.80M For IRR, cash flows are as follows: Year 0 = -40.00, Year 1 = 0, Year 2 = 0, Year 3 = 0, Year 4 = 0, Year 5 = 71.80 Formula: IRR([-40, 0, 0, 0, 0, 71.80]) = 12.4% Hence, the equity investors achieve a 12.4% IRR over the 5-year holding period. Since post-debt-service residual free cash flow never exceeds the $2.0M dividend threshold, no dividends are paid. All value creation is realized through debt paydown and exit proceeds, producing a 1.79\u00d7 MOIC and a 12.4% IRR, reflecting a conservative, cash-retentive LBO profile.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1,
5
]
}
}
|
documents/2157/LBO_Assumption.csv
|
2,186
|
Finance
|
Produce an EV to Equity Bridge that would be used in a Locked Box Paper for a regulated, asset and wealth management company based in the UK with £1bn of assets under management with the key assumptions in the pdf provided (labelled "Mercor - EV to Equity Bridge - Test Version"). Assume there are no adjustments from the reported source numbers. Assume the Locked Box Date is 31 March 2025 and the date of completion is 30 September 2025. Assume EV is £10 million. Ignore Leakage and Profit Ticker's in the analysis. Use the last 12 months from Mar-25 as an average for the target net working capital, with Mar-25 being the "actual" working capital. For clarity, corporation tax is the same as income tax payable.
Include the following line items in the EV to Equity Bridge (report to the nearest £):
- Enterprise Value
- Excess Cash
- Debt/Debt-like Items
- WC Adjustments
- Equity Value at Locked Box Date
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "States the Enterprise Value as \u00a310,000,000 (acceptable value is \u00a310,000,000)",
"sources": "",
"justification": "The Prompt articulates the EV is \u00a310,000,000",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "Calculates excess cash as \u00a315,000 (acceptable value is \u00a315,000)",
"sources": "Mercor - EV to Equity Bridge - Test Version (V2)",
"justification": "From the 'Mercor - EV to Equity Bridge - Test Version' file, deduct the minimum cash requirement of \u00a35,000 from the cash at Bank of \u00a320,000 at Mar-25 to calculate Excess Cash of \u00a315,000",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "Calculates Debt/Debt-like items as \u00a37,000 (acceptable value is \u00a37,000)",
"sources": "Mercor - EV to Equity Bridge - Test Version (V2)",
"justification": "From the 'Mercor - EV to Equity Bridge - Test Version' file, extract the \u00a37,000 of corporation tax at Mar-25. Taxes payable are considered debt-like items for an EV to Equity Bridge while trade creditors and accruals are captured within the net working capital adjustment and should not be double\u2011counted.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "Calculates the net working capital adjustment at Mar-25 of \u00a31,667 (acceptable range between \u00a31,650 and \u00a31,684)",
"sources": "Mercor - EV to Equity Bridge - Test Version (V2)",
"justification": "Add: trade debtors (\u00a335,000), other debtors (\u00a310,000), accrued income (\u00a33,000), prepayments (\u00a31,000) and subtract trade creditors (\u00a326,000) and accruals (\u00a35,000) to arrive at \u00a318,000 actual net working capital at Mar-25 Do this for all months, and then take a simple average of each month's net working capital to get \u00a316,333 average net working capital for the last 12 months Subtract the average net working capital position at Mar-25 from the actual net working capital position at Mar-25 to equal \u00a31,667",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "Calculate the Equity value for the company at Mar-25 of \u00a310,009,667 (acceptable range \u00a310,009,650 to \u00a310,009,684)",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Add the excess cash of approximately \u00a315,000 to the Enterprise value of \u00a310,000,000, deduct \u00a37,000 due to tax being a debt-like item and add the net working capital adjustment of \u00a31,667 to achieve an Equity Value of \u00a310,009,667",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1,
2,
3,
4
]
}
}
|
documents/2186/Mercor - EV to Equity Bridge - Test Version (V2).pdf
|
2,192
|
Finance
|
Italian bank UniCredit S.p.A. (Ticker: UCGIM) is evaluating a cash tender offer for one of its outstanding EUR senior unsecured notes due 2029. The objective is to optimize funding costs and smooth the maturity profile without paying unnecessary premium versus hold-to-maturity economics. The Head of Funding requests a curve-consistent valuation of tender vs hold on the settlement date.
The attached file includes: full bond terms (coupon, frequency, last & next coupon dates, maturity), today’s clean price, the proposed tender price, the ESTR par swap curve at 3y/4y/5y/6y tenors, and the settlement date at T+30 calendar days (today is 13-Oct-2025).
- The proposed tender price in the file is DIRTY (includes accrued interest up to the settlement date).
- For bond cash flows, accrued interest, and YTM/PRICE, use the bond’s coupon frequency and day-count convention from the attached terms; if not specified, use Actual/Actual (ICMA). In Excel, set frequency per terms and set basis to match the bond day-count.
- For curve construction, use the provided rules (annual compounding; ACT/365 for time fractions).
I need to know:
> The yield to maturity at Tender Price (T+30)
> Curve-consistent yield to maturity (T+30) (YTM_Hold). Reprice the bond on T+30 using the attached €STR par curve with the following curve construction rules:
Flat-front zero assumption to the first pillar (3y); linear interpolation in zero-rate space between 3y/4y/5y/6y; build discount factors with annual compounding; time fractions in ACT/365
> Delta_Yield (YTM_Tender - YTM_Hold), expressed in basis points
> Decision if to proceed with the tender (internal rule is Delta YTM > 5bps)
> If decision not to tender, break-even tender prices that would exactly meet the hurdle
Rounding & Unit Rules
> YTM: percent, 3 decimals
> Delta yield in basis points, 1 decimal
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "Calculates the YTM at tender price (YTM_Tender) as 2.204% (acceptabel range is 2.182% to 2.226%)",
"sources": "2192_UCGIM_Inputs.csv",
"justification": "YTM at tender price (YTM_Tender) Last coupon date: 15/Jun/25 Next coupon date: 15/Jun/26 Days between dates: 365 Days accrued (Decision date (T+30) - last coupon date) = 12/Nov/25 - 15/Jun/25 = 150 Accrued Coupon: (150/365) * 3.250% * 100 = 1.336 (expressed in price points per 100) Clean tender price: 104.900 (from inputs) - 1.336 = 103.564 103.564 -> 2.204% YTM (using Excel's YIELD formula)",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "Calculates the curve-consistent YTM (YTM_Hold) as 2.158% (acceptable range is 2.136% to 2.180%)",
"sources": "2192_UCGIM_Inputs.csv",
"justification": "Curve-consistent YTM (YTM_Hold) Date / Cash Flow / Yrs from Decision / Interpolated Rate / Discount Factor / Present Value 15-Jun-26 / 3.250 / 0.589 / 2.100% / 0.988 / 3.210 15-Jun-27 / 3.250 / 1.589 / 2.100% / 0.968 / 3.144 15-Jun-28 / 3.250 / 2.592 / 2.100% / 0.948 / 3.080 15-Jun-29 / 103.250 / 3.592 / 2.159% / 0.926 / 95.624 Note: Only Jun-29 cash flow required zero rate interpolation, as other tenors in flat front part of the curve Hold dirty price: 3.210 + 3.144 + 3.080 + 95.624 = 105.059 Hold clean price: 105.059 - 1.336 (accrued interest) = 103.723 103.723 -> 2.158% YTM (using Excel's YIELD formula)",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "Calculates the delta in yields between YTM_Tender and YTM_Hold (Delta_YTM) as 4.5bps (acceptable range is 4.4bps to 4.6bps)",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Delta_YTM YTM_Tender = 2.204% YTM_Hold = 2.158% Delta_YTM = 2.204% - 2.158% = 4.5bps",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1,
2
]
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "States not to proceed with the tender",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Tender decision based on Delta_YTM Delta_YTM = 4.5bps 4.5bps < 5.0bps (internal threshold, from prompt) -> Do not tender",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
3
]
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "Calculates the breakeven tender price as 104.963 (acceptable range is 103.913 to 106.013)",
"sources": "2192_UCGIM_Inputs.csv",
"justification": "Breakeven Tender Price YTM_Hold (from criterion 2) = 2.158% Hurdle = 5.0bps Breakeven YTM = 2.158% + 5.0bps = 2.208% 2.208% YTM -> 103.627 Clean Price (using Excel's PRICE formula) Clean Price (103.627) + Accrued Interest (1.336) = Breakeven Tender Price (104.963)",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
2
]
}
}
|
documents/2192/2192_UCGIM_Inputs.csv
|
2,205
|
Finance
|
On 08 October 2025, rating agency upgraded its rating on Dutch beer maker Heineken (Ticker: HEIANA) from BBB+ to A- by S&P. Heineken has one EUR 1.5bn 3.250% 17/09/2034 bond outstanding and the treasury team wants to know if the rating upgrade had any material impact on the bond's credit spread. Our trading desk spotted the bond at 89.467 on 01 October 2025 (t-7), and at 90.749 on 15 October 2025 (t+7). The file attached includes the EUR mid-swap rates on both dates.
I need to know:
- the bond's YTM and credit spread (i-spread) on 01 October 2025
- the bond's YTM and credit spread (i-spread) on 15 October 2025
- the movement in credit spreads between the two dates
Did the credit spread move materially? Consider any move of more than 20bps as material.
For YTM calculation, use the following inputs:
- Redemption Value: 100
- Coupon: Fixed, annual frequency.
- Day Count: Act/Act
- Linear interpolation if needed
State yields in percent, rounded to three decimal places, and spreads in basis points, rounded to one decimal place.
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "Calculates the bond's yield to maturity on 01-Oct-25 as 4.718% (acceptable range is 4.671% to 4.765%)",
"sources": "",
"justification": "YTM on 01-Oct-25: All relevant inputs are provided in the prompt, using 01-Oct-25 as settlement date: Bond trades at 89.467 -> 4.718% YTM (using Excel's YIELD formula)",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "Calculates the bond's yield to maturity on 15-Oct-25 as 4.533% (acceptable range is 4.488% to 4.578%)",
"sources": "",
"justification": "YTM on 15-Oct-25: All relevant inputs are provided in the prompt, using 15-Oct-25 as settlement date: Bond trades at 90.749 -> 4.533% YTM (using Excel's YIELD formula)",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "Calculates the bond's credit spread (i-spread) on 01-Oct-25 as 219.8bps (acceptable range is 217.6bps to 222.0bps)",
"sources": "2205_HEIANA_Input.csv",
"justification": "Credit spread (i-spread) on 01-Oct-25: Bond remaining life on 01-Oct-25: (17/09/34 - 01/10/25) / 365.25 = 8.961yrs (target tenor) Corresponding lower EUR MS tenor = 7.000yrs Corresponding upper EUR MS tenor = 10.000yrs Corresponding lower EUR MS rate= 2.406% Corresponding upper EUR MS rate= 2.581% Interpolated EUR MS Rate = Lower rate + (Upper rate - lower rate) / (Upper tenor - lower tenor) * (Target tenor - lower tenor) 2.406% + (2.581% - 2.406%) / (10.000yrs - 7.000yrs) * (8.961yrs - 7.000yrs) = 2.520% Credit spread = YTM - interpolated EUR MS Rate = 4.718% - 2.520% = 219.8bps",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1
]
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "Calculates the bond's credit spread (i-spread) on 15-Oct-25 as 198.7bps (acceptable range is 196.7bps to 200.7bps)",
"sources": "2205_HEIANA_Input.csv",
"justification": "Credit spread (i-spread) on 15-Oct-25: Bond remaining life on 15-Oct-25: (17/09/34 - 15/10/25) / 365.25 = 8.923yrs (target tenor) Corresponding lower EUR MS tenor = 7.000yrs Corresponding upper EUR MS tenor = 10.000yrs Corresponding lower EUR MS rate= 2.412% Corresponding upper EUR MS rate= 2.621% Interpolated EUR MS Rate = Lower rate + (Upper rate - lower rate) / (Upper tenor - lower tenor) * (Target tenor - lower tenor) 2.412% + (2.621% - 2.412%) / (10.000yrs - 7.000yrs) * (8.923yrs - 7.000yrs) = 2.546% Credit spread = YTM - interpolated EUR MS Rate = 4.533% - 2.546% = 198.7bps",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
2
]
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "Calculates the movement in credit spreads as -21.1bps (acceptable range is -21.3bps to -20.9bps)",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Movement in credit spread Credit spread (as of 15-Oct-25) - Credit spread (as of 01-Oct-25) = 198.7bps - 219.8bps = -21.1bps",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
3,
4
]
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "Determines that the movement in credit spreads is material.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Tightening by 21.1bps exceeds specified threshold of 20.0bps -> Material move",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
5
]
}
}
|
documents/2205/2205_HEIANA_Input.csv
|
2,217
|
Finance
|
Build a fully diluted market capitalization and an enterprise value valuation analysis for Coinbase. Use only the attached Form 10-Q, attached Form 10-K, attached Coinbase share trading data, and the following assumptions.
Assumptions:
- Coinbase's share price as of October 14, 2025, is used for purposes of determining dilutive shares
- The volume-weighted average price (VWAP) is calculated using the closing share price and trading volume of each of the last 45 trading days (August 12, 2025, to October 14, 2025)
- Do not include unamortized debt discount, premium, and issuance costs in gross debt
- Do not include restricted cash and restricted short-term investments in cash and equivalents
- Do not include lease liabilities in debt-like items
- Do not double-count converts: if shares are included on an if-converted basis, exclude the item from debt; otherwise, include the item in debt
- Do not include the impact of capped calls on dilution
- 100% of outstanding performance-based restricted stock units (PSUs) are dilutive
- Treat crypto assets not loaned, pledged as collateral, or held for operations as cash equivalents at their market value
- Treat crypto-denominated debt as debt at its market value
- The current market value per Bitcoin is $107,200
- The current market value per Ethereum is $3,875
- Other crypto assets are measured at their fair value from the balance sheet as of June 30, 2025
- Define Gross Profit as revenue minus transaction expense
Report:
(a) Basic shares outstanding
(b) Total dilutive shares (impact of dilutive securities)
(c) Fully diluted shares outstanding
(d) Fully diluted market capitalization (using VWAP)
(e) Enterprise value (be sure to consider strategic investments when calculating enterprise value)
(f) Enterprise value to last twelve months (LTM) June 30, 2025 Revenue
(g) Enterprise value to LTM June 30, 2025 Gross Profit
(h) Enterprise value to LTM June 30, 2025 Operating Income
(i) Fully diluted market capitalization (using VWAP) to LTM June 30, 2025 Revenue
(j) Fully diluted market capitalization (using VWAP) to LTM June 30, 2025 Net Income
Note: round final dollar figures to the nearest million, ratios to one decimal, and round shares to the nearest 0.1 million. Currency: USD (all monetary figures).
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "Calculates basic shares outstanding as 256.9 million (acceptable range from 254.4 million to 259.5 million)",
"sources": "Coinbase_Form_10-Q_Condensed.pdf",
"justification": "256.938 million basic shares outstanding = 215,159,125 Class A common stock outstanding (10-Q page 1) + 41,779,032 Class B common stock outstanding (10-Q page 1)",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "Calculates total dilutive shares (impact of dilutive securities) as 27.8 million (acceptable range from 27.5 million to 28.1 million)",
"sources": "Coinbase_Form_10-Q_Condensed.pdf Coinbase_Form_10-K_Condensed.pdf Coinbase_Trading_History.pdf",
"justification": "* RSUs: Inputs: 3.568 million outstanding RSUs (10-Q page 22) Dilution: 100% of RSUs are included in dilution; therefore, the dilution from RSUs = 3.568 million * 100% = 3.568 million dilution * Performance-based RSUs (PSUs): Inputs: 0.643 million outstanding PSUs (10-Q page 22) Dilution: 100% of PSUs are included in dilution; therefore, the dilution from PSUs = 0.643 million * 100% = 0.643 million dilution * Stock Options: Inputs: 21.391 million outstanding stock options; $25.20 weighted-average exercise price (10-Q page 22) Dilution: Since the weighted-average exercise price ($25.20) is less than the share price as of October 14, 2025 ($341.55), the stock options are in-the-money; therefore, the dilution is: 21.391 million shares - ($25.20 * 21.391 million shares) / $341.55 share price as of October 14, 2025 = 19.813 million dilution * 2026 Convertible Notes: Inputs: $1,273 million principal balance (10-Q page 17); 2.6994 conversion rate (shares per $1,000 principal amount of the convertible notes) (10-K page 27); $370.45 conversion price per share (10-K page 27) Dilution: Since the share price as of October 14, 2025 ($341.55) is below the conversion price ($370.45), the convertible notes are considered out-of-the-money and are not included in fully diluted shares. Therefore, the dilution is zero. * 2030 Convertible Notes: Inputs: $1,265 million principal balance (10-Q page 17); 2.9981 conversion rate (shares per $1,000 principal amount of the convertible notes) (10-K page 28); $333.54 conversion price per share (10-K page 28) Dilution: Since the share price as of October 14, 2025 ($341.55), is above the conversion price ($333.54), the convertible notes are considered in-the-money and are included in fully diluted shares on an if-converted basis. The dilutive impact of the convertible notes: $1,265 million convertible notes principal balance / $1,000 * 2.9981 conversion ratio = 3.793 million dilution FINAL ANSWER (sum of the above dilutions): 3.568 million RSU dilution + 0.643 million PSU dilution + 19.813 million stock options dilution + 0 2026 convertible notes dilution + 3.793 million 2030 convertible notes dilution = 27.8 million total dilutive shares",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "Calculates fully diluted shares outstanding as 284.8 million (acceptable range from 281.9 million to 287.6 million)",
"sources": "",
"justification": "284.754 million fully diluted shares outstanding = 256.938 million basic shares outstanding + 27.816 million total dilutive shares",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1,
2
]
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "Calculates fully diluted market capitalization (based on VWAP) as $94,404 million (acceptable range from $93,460 million to $95,348 million)",
"sources": "Coinbase_Trading_History.pdf",
"justification": "Computes the volume-weighted average price (VWAP) over the last 45 trading days (August 12, 2025, through October 14, 2025) using the data from 'Coinbase_Trading_History.pdf' pages 1-2. VWAP = Sum(Closing Price(i) x Volume(i)) / Sum(Volume(i)), where (i) = each trading day in the window. * Per-day dollar-volume calculations (Closing price x Volume): 14-Oct-2025: $341.55 * 9,422,500 = $3,218,254,875 13-Oct-2025: $356.99 * 10,318,400 = $3,683,565,616 . . . 13-Aug-2025: $327.01 * 15,399,800 = $5,035,888,598 12-Aug-2025: $322.62 * 9,947,800 = $3,209,359,236 Sum of 12-Aug-2025 through 14-Oct-2025 per-day dollar-volume above = $136,951,530,350 Sum of 12-Aug-2025 through 14-Oct-2025 volume above = 413,093,100 VWAP = $331.53 = $136,951,530,350 / 413,093,100 Final answer: $94,404 million fully diluted market capitalization = 284.754 million fully diluted shares x $331.53 Coinbase 45-day VWAP as of October 14, 2025",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
3
]
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "Calculates enterprise value as $84,444 million (acceptable range from $83,600 million to $85,289 million)",
"sources": "Coinbase_Form_10-Q_Condensed.pdf",
"justification": "$94,404 million fully diluted market capitalization (-) Cash and cash equivalents: $7,539 million (10-Q page 6) (-) USDC not loaned or pledged as collateral: $1,784 million (10-Q page 42) (-) Strategic investments: $1,934 million (10-Q page 6) (-) Bitcoin held for investment: 11,776 Bitcoin held for investment (10-Q page 17) * $107,200 market value per Bitcoin = $1,262 million (-) Ethereum held for investment: 136,782 Ethereum held for investment (10-Q page 17) * $3,875 market value per Ethereum = = $530 million (-) Other crypto assets held for investment: $238 million (10-Q page 17) (+) Gross debt, excluding unamortized debt discount, premium, and issuance costs: $4,275 million (10-Q page 17) (-) Convertible notes principal (if in-the-money): $1,265 million (10-Q page 17) (+) Bitcoin borrowings: 1,342 Bitcoin borrowings (10-Q page 15) * $107,200 market value per Bitcoin = $144 million (+) Ethereum borrowings: 35,172 Ethereum borrowings (10-Q page 15) * $3,875 market value per Ethereum = $136 million (+) Other crypto asset borrowings: $37 million (10-Q page 15) = $84,444 million enterprise value",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
4
]
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "Calculates enterprise value to last twelve months (LTM) June 30, 2025, Revenue as 12.0x (acceptable range from 11.8x to 12.2x)",
"sources": "Coinbase_Form_10-Q_Condensed.pdf Coinbase_Form_10-K_Condensed.pdf",
"justification": "12.0x enterprise value to last twelve months (LTM) June 30, 2025, Revenue = $84,444 million enterprise value / ($6,564.0 million FY2024 revenue (10-K page 5) - $3,087.2 million revenue for the six months ended June 30, 2024 (10-Q page 7) + $3,531.5 million revenue for the six months ended June 30, 2025 (10-Q page 7))",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
5
]
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "Calculates enterprise value to last twelve months (LTM) June 30, 2025, Gross Profit as 14.1x (acceptable range from 13.9x to 14.3x)",
"sources": "Coinbase_Form_10-Q_Condensed.pdf Coinbase_Form_10-K_Condensed.pdf",
"justification": "14.1x enterprise value to last twelve months (LTM) June 30, 2025, Gross Profit = $84,444 million enterprise value / (($6,564.0 million FY2024 revenue (10-K page 5) - $897.7 million FY2024 transaction expense (10-K page 5)) - ($3,087.2 million revenue for the six months ended June 30, 2024 (10-Q page 7) - $408.9 million transaction expense for the six months ended June 30, 2024 (10-Q page 7)) + ($3,531.5 million revenue for the six months ended June 30, 2025 (10-Q page 7) - $548.3 million transaction expense for the six months ended June 30, 2025 (10-Q page 7))",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
5
]
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "Calculates enterprise value to last twelve months (LTM) June 30, 2025, Operating Income as 44.8x (acceptable range from 44.3x to 45.3x)",
"sources": "Coinbase_Form_10-Q_Condensed.pdf Coinbase_Form_10-K_Condensed.pdf",
"justification": "44.8x enterprise value to last twelve months (LTM) June 30, 2025, Operating Income = $84,444 million enterprise value / ($2,307.2 million FY2024 Operating Income (10-K page 5) - $1,103.6 million Operating Income for the six months ended June 30, 2024 (10-Q page 7) + $681.2 million Operating Income for the six months ended June 30, 2025 (10-Q page 7))",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
5
]
},
"criterion 9": {
"description": "Calculates fully diluted market capitalization (using VWAP) to last twelve months (LTM) June 30, 2025, Revenue as 13.5x (acceptable range from 13.2x to 13.8x)",
"sources": "Coinbase_Form_10-Q_Condensed.pdf Coinbase_Form_10-K_Condensed.pdf",
"justification": "13.5x fully diluted market capitalization to last twelve months (LTM) June 30, 2025, Revenue = $94,404 million fully diluted market capitalization / ($6,564.0 million FY2024 revenue (10-K page 5) - $3,087.2 million revenue for the six months ended June 30, 2024 (10-Q page 7) + $3,531.5 million revenue for the six months ended June 30, 2025 (10-Q page 7))",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
4
]
},
"criterion 10": {
"description": "Calculates fully diluted market capitalization (using VWAP) to last twelve months (LTM) June 30, 2025, Net Income as 33.0x (acceptable range from 32.5x to 33.5x)",
"sources": "Coinbase_Form_10-Q_Condensed.pdf Coinbase_Form_10-K_Condensed.pdf",
"justification": "33.0x fully diluted market capitalization to last twelve months (LTM) June 30, 2025, Net Income = $94,404 million fully diluted market capitalization / ($2,579.1 million FY2024 net income (10-K page 5) - $1,212.4 million net income for the six months ended June 30, 2024 (10-Q page 7) + $1,494.5 million net income for the six months ended June 30, 2025 (10-Q page 7))",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
4
]
}
}
|
documents/2217/Coinbase_Form_10-K_Condensed.pdf
documents/2217/Coinbase_Form_10-Q_Condensed.pdf
documents/2217/Coinbase_Trading_History.pdf
|
2,228
|
Finance
|
A Real Estate Private Equity company (LP) is teaming up with a real estate developer to acquire a property for $25 million with a mix of debt and equity at the end of 2024.
Acquisition Assumptions:
The project will be financed with a mix of senior and mezzanine debt.
Senior Debt:
Senior Loan-to-Value (LTV) Ratio: 50.0%
Senior Loan Interest Rate: 5.00%
Senior Loan Amortization Period: 25 years
Senior Loan Maturity: End of year 5 (FY29)
Mezzanine Debt:
Mezzanine Loan-to-Value (LTV) Ratio: 10.0%
Mezzanine Cash Interest Rate: 7.00%
Mezzanine Paid-in-Kind (PIK) Interest Rate: 3.00%
Mezzanine Amortization Period: None. It is an interest-only loan with no principal repayment until maturity
Mezzanine Maturity: End of year 5 (FY29)
The developer (Operating Partner) will cover 10% of the remaining acquisition costs, and the LP will cover the other 90%.
The property currently has three tenants. The developer plans to hold the property for five years (FY25–FY29) and sell it at the end of the fifth year based on the forward twelve-month NOI. Additional assumptions for acquisition, exit, and operating drivers are provided in the attached file.
Tenant #1 has a Full Service (FS) lease, Tenant #2 has a Single Net (N) lease, and Tenant #3 has a Triple Net (NNN) lease. None of the tenants are expected to renew their leases after expiration. New leases signed following the termination of the current tenants will maintain the same lease type and rental area and follow the rental growth rates outlined in the file.
Other Assumptions:
• Tenant Improvements (TIs) and Leasing Commissions (LCs) are charged in the year the new lease is signed (LCs on total lease value, i.e., Y1 rent * term).
• In each period, replacement reserves can be applied toward capital costs, but the amount drawn cannot exceed the lower of (i) the capital costs incurred in that period or (ii) the reserves available at the beginning of the period plus replacement reserve growth during that period.
• Assume the replacement reserve allocated to the use of funds is based on the historical FY24 operating assumption.
• For Single Net (N) leases, tenants are responsible for their proportional share of property taxes.
• For Triple Net (NNN) leases, tenants are responsible for their proportional share of operating expenses (Common Area Maintenance, Common Area Utilities, and Insurance) as well as property taxes.
• The rentable area not leased by the three tenants (vacant rental area) will follow the same baseline rent as Tenant #1.
• TIs and LCs are included in the Capital Costs.
• Any shortfall to cover the debt will be pro-rata funded by the equity investors.
Project the company's cash flows based on the assumptions laid out in the files and output the following:
1. The forward twelve-month (FY30) Net Operating Income (NOI)
2. Gross proceeds from the sale of the property in FY29, excluding selling costs
3. Total selling costs associated with the sale of the property
4. Principal balance of the senior debt repaid at maturity (FY29)
5. Principal balance of the mezzanine debt repaid at maturity (FY29)
Rounding: keep full precision in calculations; present dollar amounts to the nearest whole number. Round percentages and multiples to two decimal points.
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "Calculates the forward twelve-month (FY30) Net Operating Income (NOI) as 2,141,043 (Acceptable range of 2,119,632 to 2,162,453)",
"sources": "Real-Estate-Pro-Forma Input csv.csv",
"justification": "Tenant #1 Base Rent per sq. ft = 147.5 Rentable sq. ft. occupied = 10,000 Tenant #1 (FS Lease) Base Rental Income = 1,475,003 Tenant #2 Base Rent per sq. ft = 132.83 Rentable sq. ft. occupied = 7,000 Tenant #2 (N Lease) Base Rental Income = 929,838 Tenant #3 Base Rent per sq. ft = 115.49 Rentable sq. ft. occupied = 6,000 Tenant #3 (NNN Lease)= 692,968 Vacant Space: (25,000 -10,000-7,000 -6,000)*147.5 (Base Rent per sq ft of Tenant #1): 295,001 Base Rental Income: 3,392,809 (1,475,003 + 929,838 + 629,968 + 295,001) Since no new leases are signed in FY30, Concessions & Free Rent = 0 Absorption & Turnover Vacancy = 0 TIs = 0 LCs = 0 Expense Reimbursement for Tenant #2 = 7,000 / 25,000 * 1,126,162 (RE Property Taxes in FY30) = 315,325 Expense Reimbursement for Tenant #3 = (153,651 + 89,554 + 57,985 + 1,126,162) * 6,000 / 25,000 = 342,566 Expense Reimbursements (FY30) = 315,325 + 342,566 = 657,891 Gross Potential Revenue = 4,050,700 (Base Rental Income + Expense Reimbursement) General Vacancy (FY30) = 295,001 Total EGI = 3,755,700 (Gross Potential Revenue - General Vacancy) Property Management Fees = 112,671 (3% of EGI) Common Area Maintenance (CAM) = 153,657 (3.5% growth from FY29) Common Area Utilities = 89,554 (3% growth from FY29) Insurance = 57,985 (2.5% growth from FY29) Real Estate & Property Taxes = 1,126,162 (2% growth from FY29) CapEx, TI, and LC Reserves = 74,628 (3% growth from FY29) Total Expenses = 1,614,657 FY30 NOI = 2,141,043 (Total EGI - Total Expenses)",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "Calculates the gross proceeds from the sale of the property in FY29, excluding selling costs as 35,684,042 (Acceptable range of 35,327,202 to 36,040,883).",
"sources": "Real-Estate-Pro-Forma Input csv.csv",
"justification": "Exit Cap rate = 6% Forward twelve-month NOI (FY30) = 2,141,043 Gross Proceeds from the sale = 2,141,043 / 6% = 35,684,042",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1
]
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "Calculates the total selling costs associated with the sale of the property as 535,261 (Acceptable range of 529,908 to 540,613)",
"sources": "Real-Estate-Pro-Forma Input csv.csv",
"justification": "Gross Proceeds from the sale = 35,684,042 Selling cost( % of Gross Sale Proceeds) = 1.5% Selling Costs = 35,684,042 * 1.5% = 535,261",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
2
]
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "Calculates the principal balance of the senior debt repaid at maturity (FY29) as 11,052,806 (Acceptable range of 10,942,278 to 11,163,334)",
"sources": "Real-Estate-Pro-Forma Input csv.csv",
"justification": "Senior Loan-to-Value (LTV) Ratio: 50.0% Senior Loan Interest Rate: 5.00% Senior Loan Amortization Period: 25 years Senior Loan Maturity: End of year 5 (FY29) Senior Debt = 50% * 25,000,000 (Acquisition Price) = 12,500,000 Ending Senior Debt Balance Senior Debt Principal Repayment each year FY24 12,500,000 FY25 12,238,094 (12,500,000 - 261,906) (PPMT function) FY26 11,963,093 -275,001 FY27 11,674,342 -288,751 FY28 11,371,154 -303,189 FY29 11,052,806 -318,348 FY28 Senior Debt Ending Balance = 11,371,154 Principal Debt Repayment in FY29 = 318,348 FY29 Senior Debt Ending Balance = 11,371,154 - 318,348 = 11,052,806",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "Principal balance of the mezzanine debt repaid at maturity (FY29) is 2,898,185 (Acceptable range of 2,869,203 to 2,927,167)",
"sources": "Real-Estate-Pro-Forma Input csv.csv",
"justification": "Mezzanine Loan-to-Value (LTV) Ratio: 10.0% Mezzanine Cash Interest Rate: 7.00% Mezzanine Paid-in-Kind (PIK) Interest Rate: 3.00% Mezzanine Amortization Period: None. It is an interest-only loan with no principal repayment until maturity Mezzanine Maturity: End of year 5 (FY29) Mezzanine Debt = 10% * 25,000,000 (Acquisition Price) = 2,500,000 Ending Mezzanine Debt Balance PIK Interest FY24 2,500,000 FY25 2,575,000 (2,500,000 + 75,000) 75,000 (3% of previous year's ending debt balance) FY26 2,652,250 77,250 FY27 2,731,818 79,568 FY28 2,813,772 81,955 FY29 2,898,185 84,413 FY28 Mezzanine Debt Ending Balance = 2,813,772 FY29 PIK Interest = 84,413 FY29 Mezzanine Debt Ending Balance = 2,813,772 + 84,413 = 2,898,185",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
}
}
|
documents/2228/Real-Estate-Pro-Forma Input csv.csv
|
2,230
|
Finance
|
Albion Technologies plc (a UK company, GBP as the functional currency) will acquire Horizone Sistemas S.A. (a Brazilian company, with BRL as the functional currency) for a USD denominated headline price. Closing is expected in 4.5 months (135 days). The SPA uses a locked-box mechanism; working capital is pegged and trued up in BRL at close. Two post-close structures are evaluated:
Option A – Direct UK Parent (Brazil company to pay UK dividends, 15% WHT)
Option B – NL HoldCo (Brazil to pay NL HoldCo dividends, 10% WHT) plus a USD 500m intercompany loan at SOFR + 2.5% (currently 7.6%), interest only in Year 1 (paid quarterly), with Brazil WHT on outbound intercompany interest at 10%.
Brazilian frictions include IOF (0.38%) on dividend remittances only (ignore IOF on intercompany interest), 30% interest-deductibility limit (based on the provided tax‑EBITDA), and quarterly remittance caps.
Financing is a USD Term Loan B with 2.0% OID, a 0.75% p.a. ticking fee on the committed amount through close, and cross-currency swap targeting SONIA + 2.85% all-in GBP.
All required data is presented in the attached file “Horizone_Target.csv”
Requirement:
1. Compute the 4.5-month USD/GBP forward rate based on interest rates (ACT/365; t = 135/365)
2. Calculate the total USD consideration payable at close, including locked‑box interest accrual on the headline equity value, the working capital true‑up (convert the BRL peg variance at the 5‑month USD/BRL forward rate), and any escrow specified in the data file.
3. Calculate the total GBP consideration payable at close based on 4.5 month USD/GBP forward
4. Determine the net GBP inflow at close from the permitted BRL 250m distribution, after applying WHT and IOF applicable for Option A
5. Determine the net GBP inflow at close from the permitted BRL 250m distribution, after applying WHT and IOF applicable for Option B
6. Size the USD Term Loan B so that net proceeds after 2.0% OID, together with available buyer cash (after minimum GBP buffer) and net GBP inflow at close from option A, fully fund the GBP outlay including the accrued ticking fee for 135 days. Assume 4.5 month forward EUR/GBP as 0.86.
7. Size the USD Term Loan B so that net proceeds after 2.0% OID, together with available buyer cash (after minimum GBP buffer) and net GBP inflow at close from option B, fully fund the GBP outlay including the accrued ticking fee for 135 days. Assume 4.5 month forward EUR/ GBP as 0.86.
8. For year 1, compute the maximum net GBP remitted to the UK under Option A vs Option B, respecting the quarterly BRL 300m cap, WHT/IOF, the 30% Brazil interest deductibility limit (using the provided tax‑EBITDA), and NL 25% tax on interest income. Use the provided 6‑month USD/BRL NDF for converting Year‑1 BRL cash flows, and use the USD/GBP spot from the data file for any USD to GBP Year‑1 conversions. Assume any non‑deductible Brazil interest increases tax and reduces distributable cash. If Option A net remittance is greater than Option B’s, show the answer as a negative value.
Formatting and precision:
All monetary values and ratios should be shown to 2 decimal places. Forex rates to 6 decimal places.
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "States that the 4.5 month USD/GBP forward rate is 0.788566 (acceptable range is 0.780680 to 0.796452)",
"sources": "Horizone_Target.csv",
"justification": "4.5 month USD/GBP forward based on interest rate parity USD/GBP spot: 0.790000 SONIA: 4.60% SOFR (USD): 5.10% (7.60% \u2212 2.50% = 5.10%) T = 0.37 Forward = 0.79 \u00d7 (1 + 4.60% \u00d7 0.37) / (1 + 5.10% \u00d7 0.37) = 0.788566 GBP per USD",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "States that total USD consideration at close is USD 1,308,356,290.76 (acceptable range is 1,295,272,727.85 to 1,321,439,853.67)",
"sources": "Horizone_Target.csv",
"justification": "Headline USD = 1,250,000,000.00 Locked-box rate = 5.00% Locked-box days = 135.00 WC peg BRL = 1,300,000,000.00 WC expected BRL = 1,220,000,000.00 USD/BRL 5 month forward = 5.420000 Escrow = 50,000,000.00 Locked-box interest = 1,250,000,000.00 \u00d7 5.00% \u00d7 135/365 = 23,116,438.36 WC variance (BRL) = 1,220,000,000.00 \u2212 1,300,000,000.00 = -80,000,000.00 WC true-up (USD) = -80,000,000.00 / 5.420000 = -14,760,147.60 Total USD at close = 1,250,000,000.00 + 23,116,438.36 \u2212 14,760,147.60 + 50,000,000.00 = 1,308,356,290.76",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "States that total GBP consideration at close is GBP 1,031,725,286.78 (acceptable range is 1,021,408,033.91 to 1,042,042,539.65)",
"sources": "",
"justification": "GBP consideration at close Required total USD = 1,308,356,290.76 USD/GBP 4.5 month forward = 0.788566 GBP consideration = 1,308,356,290.76 \u00d7 0.788566 = 1,031,725,286.78",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1,
2
]
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "States that net GBP inflow at close (Option A) is GBP 30,799,540.21 (acceptable range is 30,491,544.81 to 31,107,535.61)",
"sources": "Horizone_Target.csv",
"justification": "Net GBP inflow at close from BRL 250,000,000.00 (WHT 15.00%) BRL distribution = 250,000,000.00 WHT = 15.00% IOF = 0.38% USD/BRL 5 month forward = 5.420000 USD/GBP 4.5 month forward = 0.788566 Net BRL after WHT & IOF = 250,000,000.00 \u00d7 (1 \u2212 15.00%) \u00d7 (1 \u2212 0.38%) = 211,692,500.00 USD received = 211,692,500.00 / 5.420000 = 39,057,656.83 GBP received = (211,692,500.00 / 5.420000) \u00d7 0.788566 = 30,799,540.21",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1
]
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "States that net GBP inflow at close (Option B) is GBP 32,611,277.87 (acceptable range is 32,285,165.09 to 32,937,390.65)",
"sources": "Horizone_Target.csv",
"justification": "Net GBP inflow at close from BRL 250,000,000.00 (WHT 10.00%) WHT = 10.00% IOF = 0.38% USD/BRL 5 month forward = 5.420000 USD/GBP 4.5 month forward = 0.788566 Net BRL after WHT & IOF = 250,000,000.00 \u00d7 (1 \u2212 10.00%) \u00d7 (1 \u2212 0.38%) = 224,145,000.00 USD received = 224,145,000.00 / 5.420000 = 41,355,166.05 GBP received = (224,145,000.00 / 5.420000) \u00d7 0.788566 = 32,611,277.87",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1
]
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "States that gross USD Term Loan B (Option A) is USD 929,530,718.89 (acceptable range is 920,235,411.70 to 938,826,026.08)",
"sources": "Horizone_Target.csv",
"justification": "Size USD Term Loan B to fund GBP outlay including ticking fee (Option A): Required GBP consideration = 1,031,725,286.78 (from 30423) M&A fee USD = 1,250,000,000.00 \u00d7 1.00% = 12,500,000.00 Legal USD = 7,000,000.00 Convert both at 0.788566: (12,500,000.00 + 7,000,000.00) \u00d7 0.788566 = 15,377,037.00 Fixed GBP outlay = 1,031,725,286.78 + 15,377,037.00 = 1,047,102,323.78 Buyer GBP cash over buffer = 210,000,000.00 \u2212 120,000,000.00 = 90,000,000.00 Buyer USD cash = 70,000,000.00 \u00d7 0.788566 = 55,199,620.00 Buyer EUR cash = 180,000,000.00 \u00d7 0.860000 = 154,800,000.00 Option A close inflow GBP = 30,799,540.21 Sum of non-debt sources = 90,000,000.00 + 55,199,620.00 + 154,800,000.00 + 30,799,540.21 = 330,799,160.21 Debt mechanics: OID = 2.00%; Ticking fee p.a. = 0.75%; t = 0.37; Forward f = 0.788566 Identity (in GBP): G \u00d7 f \u00d7 [((1 \u2212 2.00%) \u2212 0.75% \u00d7 0.37] = Fixed GBP outlay \u2212 Non-debt sources Compute denominator : (1 \u2212 2.00% \u2212 0.75% \u00d7 0.37 = 0.977225; f \u00d7 denom = 0.77 Gross Term Loan B G (USD) = (1,047,102,323.78 \u2212 330,799,160.21) \u00f7 0.770607 = 929,530,718.89",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1,
3,
4
]
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "States that gross USD Term Loan B (Option B) is USD 927,179,667.14 (acceptable range is 917,907,870.47 to 936,451,463.81)",
"sources": "Horizone_Target.csv",
"justification": "Size USD Term Loan B to fund GBP outlay including ticking fee (Option B) GBP received (from \u00a75) = 32,611,277.87 Buyer GBP cash over buffer = 90,000,000.00 Buyer USD cash = 70,000,000.00 \u00d7 0.788566 = 55,199,620.00 Buyer EUR cash = 180,000,000.00 \u00d7 0.860000 = 154,800,000.00 New non-debt sources = 90,000,000.00 + 55,199,620.00 + 154,800,000.00 + 32,611,277.87 = 332,610,897.87 Debt mechanics: OID = 2.00%; Ticking fee p.a. = 0.75%; t = 0.37; Forward f = 0.788566 Identity (in GBP): G \u00d7 f \u00d7 [(1 \u2212 2.00% \u2212 0.75% \u00d7 0.37] = Fixed GBP outlay \u2212 Non-debt sources Compute denominator (shown to 2 dp): 0.98; f \u00d7 denom = 0.77 Fixed GBP outlay = 1,047,102,323.78 Gross TLB G (USD) = (1,047,102,323.78 \u2212 332,610,897.87) \u00f7 0.770607 = 927,179,667.14",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1,
3,
5
]
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "States that year 1 net GBP remittance difference (Option B - Option A) is GBP 1,290,350.05 (acceptable range is 1,277,446.55 to 1,303,253.55)",
"sources": "Horizone_Target.csv",
"justification": "Year-1 maximum net GBP remitted to the UK (Option A vs Option B) BRL FCF (pre-financing) = 1,100,000,000.00 BRL quarterly cap = 300,000,000.00 (annual cap = 1,200,000,000.00) BRL 6-month NDF = 5.450000 USD/GBP spot = 0.790000 IOF = 0.38% (apply to dividend remittances only; no IOF on intercompany interest) Brazil interest limit = 30.00% of 1,800,000,000.00 = cap 540,000,000.00 BRL Option A (dividends only, WHT 15.00%) Dividend base BRL = min(1,100,000,000.00, 1,200,000,000.00) = 1,100,000,000.00 Net BRL after WHT & IOF = 1,100,000,000.00 \u00d7 (1 \u2212 15.00%) \u00d7 (1 \u2212 0.38%) = 931,447,000.00 GBP remitted = (931,447,000.00 / 5.450000) \u00d7 0.790000 = 135,017,088.07 Option B (interest to NL + dividends to NL; interest WHT 10.00%; NL tax on interest 25.00%; dividend WHT 10.00%) Intercompany interest USD = 500,000,000.00 \u00d7 7.60% = 38,000,000.00 Brazil WHT on interest (10.00%) = net = 34,200,000.00 NL tax on interest (25.00%) = net = 25,650,000.00 GBP interest remitted = 25,650,000.00 \u00d7 0.790000 = 20,263,500.00 Interest BRL for deductibility = 38,000,000.00 \u00d7 5.450000 = 207,100,000.00 (< 540,000,000.00 so fully deductible) Dividend base BRL after interest = 1,100,000,000.00 \u2212 207,100,000.00 = 892,900,000.00 Net BRL dividends = 892,900,000.00 \u00d7 (1 \u2212 10.00%) \u00d7 (1 \u2212 0.38%) = 800,556,282.00 GBP dividends remitted = (800,556,282.00 / 5.450000) \u00d7 0.790000 = 116,043,938.12 Total GBP remitted (Option B) = 116,043,938.12 + 20,263,500.00 = 136,307,438.12 Difference (Option B \u2212 Option A) = 136,307,438.12 \u2212 135,017,088.07 = 1,290,350.05",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
}
}
|
documents/2230/Horizone_Target.csv
|
2,232
|
Finance
|
A developer (Operating Partner), along with a Private Equity firm (LP), wants to acquire a property for $25 million with a mix of debt and equity at the end of 2024.
Acquisition Assumptions:
The project will be financed with a mix of senior and mezzanine debt.
Senior Debt:
Senior Loan-to-Value (LTV) Ratio: 50.0% (of the Acquisition Price)
Senior Loan Interest Rate: 5.00%
Senior Loan Amortization Period: 25 years
Senior Loan Maturity: End of year 5 (FY29)
Mezzanine Debt:
Mezzanine Loan-to-Value (LTV) Ratio: 10.0%
Mezzanine Cash Interest Rate: 7.00%
Mezzanine Paid-in-Kind (PIK) Interest Rate: 3.00% (accrues to principal annually)
Mezzanine Amortization Period: None. It is an interest only loan with no principal repayment until maturity
Mezzanine Maturity: End of year 5 (FY29)
The developer (Operating Partner) will cover 10% of the remaining acquisition costs (Total Equity Required, i.e., Total Uses - Total Debt), and the LP will cover the other 90%.
The property currently has three tenants. The developer plans to hold the property for five years (FY25–FY29) and sell it at the end of the fifth year based on the forward twelve-month NOI.
Additional assumptions for acquisition, exit, and operating drivers are provided in the attached file.
Tenant #1 has a Full Service (FS) lease, Tenant #2 has a Single Net (N) lease, and Tenant #3 has a Triple Net (NNN) lease. None of the tenants are expected to renew their leases after expiration. New leases signed following the termination of the current tenants will maintain the same lease type and rental area and follow the rental growth rates outlined in the file.
Other Assumptions:
• Tenant Improvements (TIs) and Leasing Commissions (LCs) are charged in the year the new lease is signed (LCs on total lease value, i.e., Y1 rent * term).
• In each period, replacement reserves can be applied toward capital costs, but the amount drawn cannot exceed the lower of (i) the capital costs incurred in that period or (ii) the reserves available at the beginning of the period plus replacement reserve growth during that period.
• Assume the replacement reserve allocated to the use of funds is based on the historical FY24 operating assumption.
• For Single Net (N) leases, tenants are responsible for their proportional share of property taxes (including during free‑rent months).
• For Triple Net (NNN) leases, tenants are responsible for their proportional share of operating expenses (Common Area Maintenance, Common Area Utilities, and Insurance) as well as property taxes (including during free‑rent months).
• The rentable area not leased by the three tenants (vacant rental area) will follow the same baseline rent as Tenant #1.
• TIs and LCs are included in the Capital Costs.
• Any remaining ending replacement reserve balance is returned to the Equity holders upon sale.
• Any shortfall to cover the debt will be pro-rata funded by the equity investors.
• Assume the property is acquired on December 31, 2024 (end of FY24). Cash flows begin in FY25 on a fiscal-year basis.
To successfully underwrite the project, the debt lenders want to ensure the project meets a minimum Unlevered Equity Multiple (MOIC) of 1.5x. Also, the Equity Investors want to ensure that the project generates a Levered Equity Multiple (MOIC) of at least 2x (measured at exit).
Project the company's cash flows based on the assumptions laid out in the files and output the following:
1. Total Uses of Funds
2. Total Initial Equity Investment
3. Total Unlevered Returns (the sum of all pre‑debt cash flows returned to all capital at the asset level, in dollars)
4. Unlevered Equity Multiple (MOIC) (measured at exit; defined as total unlevered cash inflows (Adjusted NOI each year including FY29) plus net sale proceeds at end of FY29 plus any replacement reserve returned, divided by Total Uses of Funds)
5. Does the project meet the minimum Unlevered MOIC requirement of the debt lenders?
6. Replacement reserve balance returned to equity investors
7. Total Levered Returns (the sum of all cash flows returned to equity investors, in dollars)
8. Levered Equity Multiple (MOIC) (measured at exit; defined as total cash flows to equity (including net sale proceeds and reserve returned after all debt payoff) divided by Total Initial Equity Investment)
9. Does the project meet the minimum MOIC requirement of the equity investors at the end of FY29?
10. Percentage difference between Unlevered MOIC and Levered MOIC
Rounding: keep full precision in calculations; present dollar amounts to the nearest whole number. Round percentages and multiples to two decimals. Compute the MOIC percentage difference using full‑precision MOIC values before rounding.
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "Calculates Total Use of Funds as $25,537,500 (Acceptable range of $25,282,125 to $25,792,875)",
"sources": "Real-Estate-Pro-Forma input csv.csv",
"justification": "Acquisition Price = 25,000,000 Acquisition Costs = 250,000 (1% of Acquisition Price) Senior Loan = 50% x 25,000,000 = 12,500,000 Mezzanine Loan = 10% x 25,000,000 = 2,500,000 Loan Issuance Fees = 225,000 ((12,500,000 + 2,500,000) x 1.5%) Replacement Reserve per sq. ft. in FY24 = 2.5 Replacement Reserves = 62,500 (2.5 x 25,000) Total Uses = 25,537,500 (25,000,000 + 250,000 + 225,000 + 62,500)",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "Calculates Total Initial Equity Investment as $10,537,500 (Acceptable range of $10,432,125 to $10,642,875)",
"sources": "Real-Estate-Pro-Forma input csv.csv",
"justification": "Total Uses = 25,537,500 Senior Loan = 50% x 25,000,000 (acquisition price) = 12,500,000 Mezzanine Loan = 10% x 25,000,000 = 2,500,000 Total Equity Investment = (25,537,500 - 12,500,000 - 2,500,000) = 10,537,500",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1
]
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "Calculates Total Unlevered Returns as $42,010,753 (Acceptable range of $41,590,646 to $42,430,861)",
"sources": "Real-Estate-Pro-Forma input csv.csv",
"justification": "FY26 Adjusted NOI Calculations: Tenant #1 Base Rent per sq. ft = 129.79 Rentable sq. ft. occupied = 10,000 Tenant #1 (FS Lease) Base Rental Income = 1,297,920 Tenant #2 Base Rent per sq. ft = 115.76 Rentable sq. ft. occupied = 7,000 Tenant #2 (N Lease) Base Rental Income = 810,338 Tenant #3 Base Rent per sq. ft = 100.17 Rentable sq. ft. occupied = 6,000 Tenant #3 (NNN Lease) = 601,020 Vacant Space: (25,000 - 10,000 - 7,000 - 6,000) * 129.79 (Base Rent per sq ft of Tenant #1): 259,584 Base Rental Income: 2,968,862 (1,297,920 + 810,338 + 601,020+ 259,584) Since no new leases are signed in FY26 Concessions & Free Rent = 0 Absorption & Turnover Vacancy = 0 TIs = 0 LCs = 0 Expense Reimbursement for Tenant #2 = 7,000 / 25,000 * 1040,400 (RE Property Taxes in FY26) = 291,312 Expense Reimbursement for Tenant #3 = (133,903 + 79,568 + 52,531 + 1,040,400) * 6,000 / 25,000 = 313,536 Expense Reimbursements (FY26) = 291,312 + 313,536 = 604,848 Gross Potential Revenue = 3,573,710 (Base Rental Income + Expense Reimbursement) General Vacancy (FY26) = 259,584 Total EGI = 3,314,126 (Gross Potential Revenue - General Vacancy) Property Management Fees = 99,424 (3% of EGI) Common Area Maintenance (CAM) = 133,903 (3.5% growth from FY25) Common Area Utilities = 79,568 (3% growth from FY25) Insurance = 52,531 (2.5% growth from FY25) Real Estate & Property Taxes = 1,040,400 (2% growth from FY25) CapEx, TI, and LC Reserves = 66,306 (3% growth from FY25) Total Expenses = 1,472,132 NOI = 1,841,994 (Total EGI - Total Expenses) Capital Costs = 0 (No TIs and LCs in FY26) Adjusted NOI = 1,841,994 Similarly, FY25 = 1,746,657 (Adjusted NOI) FY27 = 378,477 (Adjusted NOI) FY28 = 748,677 (Adjusted NOI) Unlevered Cash Flows (FY25\u2013FY29) FY25 = 1,746,657 (Adjusted NOI) FY26 = 1,841,994 (Adjusted NOI) FY27 = 378,477 (Adjusted NOI) FY28 = 748,677 (Adjusted NOI) FY29: FY29 Adjusted NOI = 2,073,712 Gross Proceeds from the sale = 35,684,042 Selling Costs = 535,261 Replacement Reserve = 72,455 Total Unlevered Cash Flows in FY29 = 2,073,712 + 35,684,042 - 535,261 + 72,455 = 37,294,948 Total Unlevered Returns =1,746,657 + 1,841,994 + 378,477 + 748,677 + 37,294,948 = 42,010,753 Because the sale is priced off forward twelve\u2011month NOI (FY30), FY29 Adjusted NOI is not embedded in the sale price; therefore Year\u20115 cash flow correctly includes both FY29 Adjusted NOI and net sale proceeds.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "Calculates Unlevered Equity Multiple (MOIC) as 1.65x (Acceptable range of 1.63x to 1.67x)",
"sources": "Real-Estate-Pro-Forma input csv.csv",
"justification": "Total Uses of Funds = 25,537,500 Total Unlevered Returns = 42,010,753 Unlevered Equity Multiple = 42,010,753 / 25,537,500 = 1.65x",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1,
3
]
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "Concludes that the project does meet the minimum Unlevered MOIC requirement of the debt lenders",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Minimum Unlevered MOIC requirement is 1.5x Unlevered Equity Multiple= 1.65x is greater than 1.5x. Yes, the project meets the minimum Unlevered MOIC requirement of the debt lenders.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
4
]
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "Calculates Replacement reserve balance returned to equity investors as $72,455 (Acceptable range of $71,730 to $73,179)",
"sources": "Real-Estate-Pro-Forma input csv.csv",
"justification": "FY29 Beginning Replacement Reserve Balance = 0 Replacement Reserve Expense = 72,455 Replacement Reserve used to cover CapEx, TIs and LCs = 0 FY29 Ending Replacement Reserve Balance = Beg. Balance + Replacement Reserve Expense - Replacement Reserve used to cover CapEx, TIs and LCs = 72,455 Replacement reserve balance returned to equity investors is 72,455 Earlier balances were fully drawn under the reserve\u2011use rule prior to FY29; with no FY29 draws, the ending reserve equals the FY29 accrual and is returned at sale.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "Calculates the Total Levered Returns as $22,696,135 (Acceptable range of $22,469,174 to $22,923,097)",
"sources": "Real-Estate-Pro-Forma input csv.csv",
"justification": "Total Cash Flow to Equity Investors in FY26: Tenant #1 Base Rent per sq. ft. = 129.79 Rentable sq. ft. occupied = 10,000 Tenant #1 (FS Lease) Base Rental Income = 1,297,920 Tenant #2 Base Rent per sq. ft. = 115.76 Rentable sq. ft. occupied = 7,000 Tenant #2 (N Lease) Base Rental Income = 810,338 Tenant #3 Base Rent per sq. ft = 100.17 Rentable sq. ft. occupied = 6,000 Tenant #3 (NNN Lease) = 601,020 Vacant Space: (25,000 - 10,000 - 7,000 - 6,000) * 129.79 (Base Rent per sq. ft. of Tenant #1): 259,584 Base Rental Income: 2,968,862 (1,297,920 + 810,338 + 601,020+ 259,584) Since no new leases are signed in FY26 Concessions & Free Rent = 0 Absorption & Turnover Vacancy = 0 TIs = 0 LCs = 0 Expense Reimbursement for Tenant #2 = 7,000 / 25,000 * 1040,400 (RE Property Taxes in FY26) = 291,312 Expense Reimbursement for Tenant #3 = (133,903 + 79,568 + 52,531 + 1,040,400) * 6,000 / 25,000 = 313,536 Expense Reimbursements (FY26) = 291,312 + 313,536 = 604,848 Gross Potential Revenue = 3,573,710 (Base Rental Income + Expense Reimbursement) General Vacancy (FY26) = 259,584 Total EGI = 3,314,126 (Gross Potential Revenue - General Vacancy) Property Management Fees = 99,424 (3% of EGI) Common Area Maintenance (CAM) = 133,903 (3.5% growth from FY25) Common Area Utilities = 79,568 (3% growth from FY25) Insurance = 52,531 (2.5% growth from FY25) Real Estate & Property Taxes = 1,040,400 (2% growth from FY25) CapEx, TI, and LC Reserves = 66,306 (3% growth from FY25) Total Expenses = 1,472,132 NOI = 1,841,994 (Total EGI - Total Expenses) Capital Costs = 0 (No TIs and LCs in FY26) Adjusted NOI = 1,841,994 Interest Expense on Senior Debt = 611,905 (Using IPMT function) Senior Debt Principal Repayment = 275,001 (Using PPMT function) Cash Interest on Mezzanine Debt = 180,250 (2,575,000 * 7%) Cash Flow to Equity in FY26 = 1,841,994 - 611,905 - 275,001 - 180,250 = 774,838 Similarly, FY25 = 684,751 (cash flow to Equity) FY27 = -694,086 FY28 = -329,456 Levered Cash Flows (FY25\u2013FY29) FY25 = 684,751 FY26 = 774,838 FY27 = -694,086 FY28 = -329,456 Total Levered Cash Flows in FY29 = 22,260,088 Total Levered Returns = 684,751 + 774,838 + -694,086 + -329,456 + 22,260,088 = 22,696,135",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "Calculates Levered Equity Multiple (MOIC) as 2.15x (Acceptable range of 2.13x to 2.18x)",
"sources": "Real-Estate-Pro-Forma input csv.csv",
"justification": "Total Equity Investment= 10,537,500 Total Levered Returns =22,696,135 Levered Equity Multiple = 22,696,135 / 10,537,500 =2.15x",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
7,
2
]
},
"criterion 9": {
"description": "Concludes that the project does meet the minimum levered MOIC requirement of equity investors",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Minimum Levered MOIC requirement is 2x Levered Equity Multiple= 2.15x is greater than 2x Yes, the project meets the minimum MOIC requirement of the equity investors",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
8
]
},
"criterion 10": {
"description": "Calculates the Percentage difference between Unlevered MOIC and Levered MOIC as 30.93% (Acceptable range of 30.63% to 31.23% )",
"sources": "Real-Estate-Pro-Forma input csv.csv",
"justification": "Compute using full\u2011precision MOICs (per prompt), then round the final percentage to two decimals: Unlevered MOIC = 42,010,753 / 25,537,500 = 1.645061302, rounds to 1.65x reported Levered MOIC = 22,696,135 / 10,537,500 = 2.153844365, rounds to 2.15x reported % Difference = (2.153844365 - 1.645061302) / 1.645061302 * 100 = 30.93%.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
4,
8
]
}
}
|
documents/2232/Real-Estate-Pro-Forma input csv.csv
|
2,261
|
Finance
|
As part of Lloyd's liquidity review in relation to a potential M&A transaction, you have been tasked with assessing the bank's balance sheet to evaluate post-transaction funding resilience and regulatory headroom under Basel III Net Stable Funding Ratio (NSFR) framework.
You are provided with the following materials for your assessment:
- Lloyds Bank - 2025 HY Pillar 3 report
- LLoyds - Retail Deposit & Wholesale Funding Report (prepared by the Treasury team) - (Values in £ Millions)
The Treasury team has confirmed the following events occurring on 2 July 2025:
- Customer A1 (an individual retail depositor whose balances were previously within a personal account covered by the national deposit-insurance scheme) has transferred all their funds to an account used primarily to fund crypto-asset investments. The account remain retail, but the balance is held for investment rather than day‑to‑day transactional purposes i.e. rate or market-sensitive.
- Stable Retail customers A3, A4, and A5 have had their accounts reclassified to Other Wholesale Funding due to changes in their activity profiles.
Assuming no other changes occur besides the reclassifications described above, complete the following tasks objectives:
1. Determine the total weighted Stable Retail Deposit as at 31 December 2025, rounded to the nearest whole number.
2. Determine the total weighted Less Stable Retail Deposit as at 31 December 2025, rounded to the nearest whole number.
3. Determine the total weighted Retail Deposit as at 31 December 2025, rounded to the nearest whole number.
4. Determine the total weighted Operational Deposits as at 31 December 2025, rounded to the nearest whole number.
5. Determine the total weighted Other Wholesale Funding as at 31 December 2025, rounded to the nearest whole number.
6. Determine the total weighted Wholesale Funding as at 31 December 2025, rounded to the nearest whole number.
7. Determine the total weighted ASF as at 31 December 2025, rounded to the nearest whole number.
8. Determine the Net Stable Funding Ratio (NSFR) as at 31 December 2025, rounded to the nearest percentage.
9. Assess whether the projected NSFR as at 31 December 2025 has changed materially (i.e., by more than +/- 5%) compared to 30 June 2025.
10. Determine if the bank will still be operating within Basel III's Net Stable Funding Ratio (NSFR) framework based on the projected NSFR as at 31 December 2025?
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "Determine the total weighted Stable Retail Deposits as at 31 December 2025 as \u00a366,736 million. (Acceptable range is \u00a366,136 million to \u00a367,336 million)",
"sources": "Lloyds Bank - 2025 HY Pillar 3 report and Lloyds Retail Deposit & Wholesale Funding Report",
"justification": "The total weighted Stable Retail Deposit is projected to be \u00a366,736 million as at 31.12.2025. Calculation: Step 1 => Extraction: Initial balances: * Initial Stable Deposits: \u00a3270,248 million sourced from line item 5 in Lloyds Bank - 2025 HY Pillar 3 report. Step 2 => Adjustments: * Reclassification of Customer A1 (See Lloyds Retail Deposit & Wholesale Funding Report) : Customer A1's \u00a370,000 million is moved from Stable to Less Stable deposits. (as per Basel III, the switch of the balance to investment related account makes the balance less stable) * Reclassification of Customers A3, A4, A5 (see Lloyds Retail Deposit & Wholesale Funding Report): The combined total of \u00a3130,000 million (\u00a335,000m + \u00a345,000m + \u00a350,000m) is moved from Stable Deposits to Other Wholesale Funding. Step 3 => Recalculation: * Adjusted Stable Deposits: \u00a3270,248m - \u00a370,000m - \u00a3130,000m = \u00a370,248m * Weighted Stable Deposits: \u00a370,248m * 95% ASF factor = \u00a366,736 million. => Result * The total weighted Stable Retail Deposits as at 31 December 2025 is \u00a366,736 million",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "Determine the total weighted Less Stable Retail Deposit as at 31 December 2025 as \u00a3135,875m. (Acceptable range is \u00a3134,875m to \u00a3136,875m)",
"sources": "Lloyds Bank - 2025 HY Pillar 3 report and Lloyds Retail Deposit & Wholesale Funding Report",
"justification": "The total weighted Less Stable Retail Deposit is projected to be \u00a3135,875m as at 31.12.2025. Calculation: Step 1 => Extraction: Initial balances * Initial Less Stable Deposits: \u00a380,972 million (See line item 6 in Lloyds Bank - 2025 HY Pillar 3 report) Step 2 => Adjustments * Reclassification of Customer A1 (See Lloyds Retail Deposit & Wholesale Funding Report) : Customer A1's \u00a370,000 million is moved from Stable to Less Stable deposits. (as per Basel III, the switch of the balance to investment related account makes the balance less stable). Per the prompt, the account is used for crypto-asset investments and is rate or market-sensitive, therefore it has higher change to be withdrawn quickly in response to market conditions, thus justifying the classification into 'Less Stable'. Step 3 => Recalculation: * Adjusted Less Stable Deposits: \u00a380,972m + \u00a370,000m = \u00a3150,972m * Weighted Less Stable Deposits: \u00a3150,972m * 90% ASF factor = \u00a3135,875 million. => Result * Total Weighted Less Stable Retail Deposits is \u00a3135,875m",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "Determine the total weighted Retail Deposit as at 31 December 2025 as \u00a3202,611 million. (Acceptable range is \u00a3200,611 million to \u00a3204,611 million)",
"sources": "",
"justification": "The total weighted Retail Deposit is projected to be \u00a3202,611 million as at 31.12.2025. Calculation: * Total Weighted Retail Deposits = Weighted Stable Retail Deposit + Weighted Less Stable Retail Deposit = \u00a366,736m + \u00a3135,875m = \u00a3202,611 million => Result * The total weighted Retail Deposits as at 31 December 2025 is \u00a3202,611 million",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1,
2
]
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "Determine the total weighted Operational Deposits as at 31 December 2025 as \u00a312,084 million (Acceptable value is \u00a311,984 million to \u00a312,184 million)",
"sources": "Lloyds Bank - 2025 HY Pillar 3 report and Lloyds Retail Deposit & Wholesale Funding Report",
"justification": "The total weighted Operational Deposits is projected to be \u00a312,084 million as at 31.12.2025. Calculation: Step 1 => Extractions: Initial Balances * Initial Operational Deposits (unweighted) is \u00a324,167 million (sourced from line 8, Lloyds Bank - 2025 HY Pillar 3 report) Step 2 => Adjustments * No adjustment required as per instructions Step 3 => Recalculations: * Weighted Operational Deposit: \u00a324,167m * 50% = \u00a312,084 million Step 4=> Result *The total weighted Operational Deposits as at 31 December 2025 is \u00a312,084 million.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "Determine the total weighted Other Wholesale Funding as at 31 December 2025 as \u00a3213,070 million (Acceptable range is \u00a3211,070 million to \u00a3215,070 million)",
"sources": "Lloyds Bank - 2025 HY Pillar 3 report and Lloyds Retail Deposit & Wholesale Funding Report",
"justification": "The total weighted Other Wholesale Funding is projected to be \u00a3213,070 million as at 31.12.2025. Calculation: Step 1 => Extract: * Initial Other Wholesale Funding (weighted): \u00a383,070 million Step 2 => Adjustment: * Reclassification of Customers A3, A4, A5 from Stable Retail Deposit to Other Wholesale Funding: \u00a3130,000 million * Residual maturity bucket change: As per Lloyds - Retail Deposit & Wholesale Funding Report, the reclassified customers rolled at maturity and their maturity changed to a >1 year maturity bucket as follows: -> A3, new maturity date is 5 Sep 2027, with residual maturity of 613 days > 365 days as at 31 Dec 2025; -> A4, new maturity date is 7 July 2027, with residual maturity of 553 days > 365 days as at 31.12.2025; -> A5, new maturity date is 9 Dec 2027, with residual maturity of 708 days > 365 days as at 31.12.2025. Under the Basel III NSFR standard (BCBS 295, para 33-34), >1 year maturity weighting factor is 100% Step 3 => Recalculation * Weighted Other Wholesale Funding: \u00a383,070m (initial) + \u00a3130,000m (reclassified with a 100% weighting) = \u00a3213,070m Step 4 => Result: The total weighted Other Wholesale Funding as at 31 December 2025 is \u00a3213,070 million",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "Determine the total weighted Wholesale Funding as at 31 December 2025 as \u00a3225,154 million (Acceptable range is \u00a3223,154 million to \u00a3227,154 million)",
"sources": "",
"justification": "The total weighted Wholesale Funding is projected to be \u00a3225,154 million as at 31.12.2025. Calculation: * Total Weighted Wholesale Funding = Weighted Operational deposits + Weighted Other Wholesale Funding = \u00a312,084m (Criteria 4) + \u00a3213,070m (Criteria 5) = 225,154million Result: The total weighted Wholesale Funding as at 31 December 2025 is \u00a3225,154million.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
4,
5
]
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "Determine the total weighted ASF as at 31 December 2025 is \u00a3480,876 million (Acceptable range is \u00a3476,876 million to \u00a3484,876 million)",
"sources": "Lloyds Bank - 2025 HY Pillar 3 report",
"justification": "The total Available Stable Funding (ASF) is recalculated by adjusting the starting ASF figure from 30 June 2025 with the changes in the weighted retail and wholesale funding components. Calculation: Step 1 => Extract Initial Balances * Initial Total ASF (30 June 2025): \u00a3477,876 million (as per line 14, Lloyds Bank - 2025 HY Pillar 3 report) * Initial Weighted Retail Deposits: \u00a3329,611 million (as per line 4, Lloyds Bank - 2025 HY Pillar 3 report) * Initial Weighted Wholesale Funding: \u00a395,154 million (as per line 7, Lloyds Bank - 2025 HY Pillar 3 report) Step 2 => Calculation of Change in ASF: * Change in Weighted Retail: \u00a3202,611m (New - Criteria 3 above) - \u00a3329,611m (Old) = -\u00a3127,000 million * Change in Weighted Wholesale: \u00a3225,154m (New, criteria 6 above) - \u00a395,154m (Old) = +\u00a3130,000 million * Net Change in ASF:** -\u00a3127,000m + \u00a3130,000m = +\u00a33,000 million Step 3 => Calculation of New Total ASF * New Total ASF: \u00a3477,876m + \u00a33,000m = \u00a3480,876 million Step 4: Result *The total weighted ASF as at 31 December 2025 is \u00a3480,876 million.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
6,
3
]
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "Determine the Net Stable Funding Ratio (NSFR) as at 31 December 2025 as 123% (acceptable range is 121% to 125%)",
"sources": "",
"justification": "The projected NSFR is calculated using the new total ASF, while the Required Stable Funding (RSF) is assumed to remain constant as per the instructions. Calculation: Step 1: => Recall * New Total ASF: \u00a3480,876 million (criteria 7 above) * Total RSF (unchanged):\u00a3391,916 million Step 2 => NSFR Calculation * NSFR: Total weighted ASF/Total weighted RSF * 100 = (\u00a3480,876m / \u00a3391,916m) * 100 = 122.70% * Rounded to the nearest percentage as per instructions => 123% Step 3 => Result * The Net Stable Funding Ratio (NSFR) as at 31 December 2025 is 123%.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
7
]
},
"criterion 9": {
"description": "Assess that the projected NSFR as at 31 December 2025 has not changed materially (i.e., by more than +/- 5%) compared to 30 June 2025.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "* NSFR at 30 June 2025:** 122% * Projected NSFR at 31 December 2025: 123% * Change in NSFR:** 123% - 122% = +1% The projected NSFR as at 31 December 2025 has not changed materially, as the increase of 1% is within the +/- 5% threshold.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
8
]
},
"criterion 10": {
"description": "Determine that the bank will still be operating within Basel III's Net Stable Funding Ratio (NSFR) framework based on the projected NSFR as at 31 December 2025.",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Yes, the projected NSFR of 123% (see Criteria 8) exceeds the Basel III minimum requirement of 100% for the NSFR (BCBS295)",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
8
]
}
}
|
documents/2261/LLoyds - Retail Deposit & Wholesale Funding Report.pdf
documents/2261/Lloyds Bank - 2025 HY Pillar 3 report.pdf
|
2,266
|
Finance
|
A company is considered "efficient" if it has a waste recycled percentage greater than 45%. “Country_data.csv”, attached, contains data on publicly traded comparable companies across the world.
What is the average EV to EBITDA multiple (rounded to the nearest 0.01x) for efficient companies domiciled in the following four countries?
• Germany
• Japan
• USA
• UK
An efficient company domiciled in Japan is planning to list in the public markets. If the company’s EV to EBITDA multiple is currently 30.0x, is it currently above or below the average EV to EBITDA multiple for efficient companies domiciled in Japan?
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "Calculates the average EV to EBITDA multiple for efficient companies domiciled in Germany as 39.65x (acceptable value range is 37.66x to 41.64x)",
"sources": "Country_data.csv",
"justification": "Identify efficient companies by filtering Column D for those with waste recycled percentage greater than 45%. Use Columns C and B to divide EV by EBITDA. Calculate the average EV to EBITDA of the 40 efficient companies domiciled in Germany. Their average multiple is 39.65x",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "Calculates the average EV to EBITDA multiple for efficient companies domiciled in Japan as 33.80x (acceptable value range is 32.11x to 35.49x)",
"sources": "Country_data.csv",
"justification": "Identify efficient companies by filtering Column D for those with waste recycled percentage greater than 45%. Use Columns C and B to divide EV by EBITDA. Calculate the average EV to EBITDA of the 54 efficient companies domiciled in Japan. Their average multiple is 33.80x",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "Calculates the average EV to EBITDA multiple for efficient companies domiciled in the UK as 35.68x (acceptable value range is 33.90x to 37.46x)",
"sources": "Country_data.csv",
"justification": "Identify efficient companies by filtering Column D for those with waste recycled percentage greater than 45%. Use Columns C and B to divide EV by EBITDA. Calculate the average EV to EBITDA of the 72 efficient companies domiciled in the UK. Their average multiple is 35.68x",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "Calculates the average EV to EBITDA multiple for efficient companies domiciled in the US as 32.77x (acceptable value range is 31.13x to 34.41x)",
"sources": "Country_data.csv",
"justification": "Identify efficient companies by filtering Column D for those with waste recycled percentage greater than 45%. Use Columns C and B to divide EV by EBITDA. Calculate the average EV to EBITDA of the 625 efficient companies domiciled in the US. Their average multiple is 32.77x",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "Identifies that the company's EV to EBITDA multiple of 30.0x is lower than the average EV to EBITDA multiple of efficient companies domiciled in Japan",
"sources": "Country_data.csv Prompt",
"justification": "Extract from the prompt that the Company's multiple is 30.0x. Compare to the multiple calculated for efficient companies domiciled in Japan of 33.80x. 30.00x is lower than 33.80x (Criterion 2 or 30676).",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
2
]
}
}
|
documents/2266/Country_data.csv
|
2,269
|
Finance
|
Hermion plc. Loan request
A new loan request from a IT infrastructure company Hermion plc. just arrived via email to your boss. They are looking to obtain a new loan to finance a new development project.
Your task is to prepare an initial analysis of the company’s cash generating capacity based on the extracts from their 3-year (FY25F-FY27F) business plan (source file “Business plan data.pdf”). The goal is to calculate Cash Flow Available for Debt Service (CFADS) and Debt Service Coverage Ratio (DSCR) for each of the three forecast years and determine whether DSCR is below 1.15 in any year.
The business plan extracts contains the following information:
Revenue forecast
The company has 2 main revenue streams:
Long term contracts - The company offers long-term contracts to its customers for use of their telecom infrastructure.
• Each contract has a 4-year duration.
• 60% of total contract value is received as cash upon contract signing.
• The remaining 40% is received evenly over the 4 years period (duration of the contract).
• For accounting purposes, Hermion records the total contract value amount as deferred revenue on its balance sheet and recognizes revenue proportionally each year over the 4 year period.
• Revenue that will be recognized from the existing long term contracts was given in source file “Business plan data.pdf”
One-year contracts - this type of contract follows standard form in which contract is signed for one year, and contract price is being paid by the customer in that year.
New long term contracts signed
This figure represents the full contract amount that is forecasted to be received by the company from new long term contracts for each of the forecast years.
Expense forecast
Shows expense breakdown per category
CAPEX forecast
Shows amounts of investments needed to maintain the operational efficiency of the business.
Total debt repayments (new loan included)
Here a breakdown of debt repayments on principal and interest is forecasted. These figures include existing debt repayments as well as the repayments for the new loan that was requested by Hermion plc. from Galio nacional bank.
Assume that the tax rate is 22%.
Assume no changes in working capital (other than that relating to deferred revenue), for simplicity’s sake.
Round all calculations to the nearest whole number and round DSCR ratio to two decimal places.
Using the figures provided in file “Business plan data.pdf”, and other relevant assumptions provided above:
• Calculate Revenue recognized from long term contracts for each of the 3 years .
• Calculate cash received from long term contracts for each of the 3 years .
• Calculate CFADS for each of the 3 years from the business plan.
• Calculate DSCR for each of the 3 years from the business plan. For DSCR use formula DSCR = CFADS / total debt service.
• Check whether DSCR is below 1.15 in any year, and report the final answer as either 'DSCR is above 1.15 in each forecast year' or 'DSCR is below 1.15 in at least one forecast year'.
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "Calculates FY25F revenue recognized from long term contracts as \u20ac 3,500k (acceptable range \u20ac 3,490k to \u20ac 3,510k)",
"sources": "Business plan data.pdf",
"justification": "Finds figure for FY25F revenue recognized from existing long term contracts from source file Business plan data.pdf as 2,750 Calculates FY25F revenue recognized from new long term contracts as 25% * FY25F New long term contracts signed - total value = 25% * 3,000 = 750 Calculates FY25F revenue recognized from long term contracts as FY25F revenue recognized from existing long term contracts + FY25F revenue recognized from new long term contract = 2,750 + 750 = \u20ac 3,500k",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "Calculates FY26F revenue recognized from long term contracts as \u20ac 3,350k (acceptable range \u20ac 3,340k to \u20ac 3,360k)",
"sources": "Business plan data.pdf",
"justification": "Finds figure for FY26F revenue recognized from existing long term contracts from source file Business plan data.pdf as 1,950 Calculates FY26F revenue recognized from new long term contracts as 25% * FY25F New long term contracts signed - total value + 25% * FY26F New long term contracts signed - total value = 25% * 3,000 + 25% * 2,600= 1,400 Calculates FY26F revenue recognized from long term contracts as FY26F revenue recognized from existing long term contracts + FY26F revenue recognized from new long term contract = 1,950 + 1,400 = \u20ac 3,350k",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "Calculates FY27F revenue recognized from long term contracts as \u20ac 3,550k (acceptable range \u20ac 3,540k to \u20ac 3,560k)",
"sources": "Business plan data.pdf",
"justification": "Finds figure for FY27F revenue recognized from existing long term contracts from source file Business plan data.pdf as 1,400 Calculates FY27F revenue recognized from new long term contracts as 25% * FY25F New long term contracts signed - total value + 25% * FY26F New long term contracts signed - total value + 25% * FY27F New long term contracts signed - total value = 25% * 3,000 + 25% * 2,600 + 25% * 3000= 2,150 Calculates FY27F revenue recognized from long term contracts as FY27F revenue recognized from existing long term contracts + FY27F revenue recognized from new long term contract = 1,400 + 2,150 = \u20ac 3,550k",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "Calculates FY25F cash received from long term contracts as \u20ac 3,200k (acceptable range \u20ac 3,190k - \u20ac 3,210k)",
"sources": "Business plan data.pdf",
"justification": "Calculates FY25F cash received from existing long term contracts as FY25F revenue recognized from existing long term contracts / 2.5 = 2,750/2.5 = 1,100 Further explanation for FY25F cash received from existing long term contracts calculation As prompt states 60% of contract total value is received upfront, while the remaining 40% is paid annually over the 4 year period, i.e. 10% is paid each year. As the company recognizes revenue proportionally each year over the 4 year period, 25% of contract total value is recognized for each of the 4 years. Therefore the revenue recognized / remaining cash received ratio = 25%/10% = 2.5 Calculates FY25F upfront cash received from new long term contracts signed as 60% * FY25F New long term contracts signed - total value = 3,000 * 60% = 1,800 Calculates FY25F annually cash received from new contracts signed as 10% *FY25F New long term contracts signed - total value = 10% * 3,000 = 300 Calculates FY25F cash received from long term contracts as FY25F cash received from existing long term contracts + FY25F upfront cash received from new long term contracts signed + FY25F annually cash received from new contracts signed = 1,100 + 1,800 + 300 = \u20ac 3,200k",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "Calculates FY26F cash received from long term contracts as \u20ac 2,900k (acceptable range \u20ac 2,890k - \u20ac 2,910k)",
"sources": "Business plan data.pdf",
"justification": "Calculates FY26F cash received from existing long term contracts as FY26F revenue recognized from existing long term contracts / 2.5 = 1,950/2.5 = 780 Further explanation for FY25F cash received from existing long term contracts calculation given in justification for Criterion 4 Calculates FY26F upfront cash received from new long term contracts signed as 60% * FY26F New long term contracts signed - total value = 2,600 * 60% = 1,560 Calculates FY26F annually cash received from new contracts signed as 10% *FY25F New long term contracts signed - total value + 10% *FY26F New long term contracts signed - total value = 10% * 3,000 + 10% * 2,600 = 560 Calculates FY26F cash received from long term contracts as FY26F cash received from existing long term contracts + FY26F upfront cash received from new long term contracts signed + FY26F annually cash received from new contracts signed = 780 + 1,560 + 560 = \u20ac 2,900k",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "Calculates FY27F cash received from long term contracts as \u20ac 3,220k (acceptable range \u20ac 3,210k - \u20ac 3,230k)",
"sources": "Business plan data.pdf",
"justification": "Calculates FY27F cash received from existing long term contracts as FY27F revenue recognized from existing long term contracts / 2.5 = 1,400/2.5 = 560 Further explanation for FY27F cash received from existing long term contracts calculation given in justification for Criterion 4 Calculates FY27F upfront cash received from new long term contracts signed as 60% * FY27F New long term contracts signed - total value = 3,000 * 60% = 1,800 Calculates FY26F annually cash received from new contracts signed as 10% *FY25F New long term contracts signed - total value + 10% *FY26F New long term contracts signed - total value + 10% *FY27F New long term contracts signed - total value = 10% * 3,000 + 10% * 2,600 + 10% * 3,000 = 860 Calculates FY27F cash received from long term contracts as FY27F cash received from existing long term contracts + FY27F upfront cash received from new long term contracts signed + FY27F annually cash received from new contracts signed = 560 + 1,800 + 860 = \u20ac 3,220k",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "Calculates FY25F CFADS as \u20ac 1,365k (acceptable range \u20ac 1,355k to \u20ac 1,375k)",
"sources": "Business plan data.pdf",
"justification": "Calculates FY25F EBITDA as FY25F revenue recognized from long term contracts ( from criterion 1) + FY25F revenue from one-year contracts - FY25F maintenance costs - FY25F Personnel costs = 3,500 + 3,575 -3,985 - 877 = 2,213 Calculates FY25F Profit before tax as FY25F EBITDA - FY25F D&A costs - FY25F Interest = 2,213 - 108 - 44 = 2,061 Calculates FY25F tax as Profit before tax * tax rate = 2,061 * 22% = 453 Calculates FY25F CFADS as FY25F EBITDA - FY25F revenue recognized from long term contracts + FY25F cash received from long term contracts (from criterion 4) - FY25F tax - FY25F CAPEX = 2,213 - 3,500 + 3,200 - 453 - 95 = \u20ac1,365k",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1,
4
]
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "Calculates FY26F CFADS as \u20ac 1,157k (acceptable range : \u20ac 1,147k to \u20ac 1,167k)",
"sources": "Business plan data.pdf",
"justification": "Calculates FY26F EBITDA as FY26F revenue recognized from long term contracts ( from criterion 2) + FY26F revenue from one-year contracts - FY26F maintenance costs - FY26F Personnel costs = 3,350 + 4,850 -5,007 - 1,034 = 2,159 Calculates FY26F Profit before tax as FY26F EBITDA - FY26F D&A costs - FY26F Interest = 2,159 - 131 - 44 = 1,984 Calculates FY26F tax as Profit before tax * tax rate = 1,984 * 22% = 436 Calculates FY26F CFADS as FY26F EBITDA - FY26F revenue recognized from long term contracts + FY26F cash received from long term contracts (from criterion 5) - FY26F tax - FY26F CAPEX = 2,159- 3,350 + 2,900 - 436 - 116 = \u20ac1,157k",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
2,
5
]
},
"criterion 9": {
"description": "Calculates FY27F CFADS as \u20ac 1,009k (acceptable range \u20ac 999k to \u20ac 1,019k)",
"sources": "Business plan data.pdf",
"justification": "Calculates FY27F EBITDA as FY27F revenue recognized from long term contracts ( from criterion 3) + FY26F revenue from one-year contracts - FY27F maintenance costs - FY27F Personnel costs = 3,550 + 3,502 -4,109 - 1,145 = 1,798 Calculates FY27F Profit before tax as FY27F EBITDA - FY27F D&A costs - FY27F Interest = 1,798 - 109- 43 = 1,646 Calculates FY27F tax as Profit before tax * tax rate = 1,646 * 22% = 362 Calculates FY27F CFADS as FY27F EBITDA - FY27F revenue recognized from long term contracts + FY27F cash received from long term contracts (from criterion 6) - FY27F tax - FY27F CAPEX = 1,798- 3,550 + 3,220- 362 - 97 = \u20ac1,009k",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
3,
6
]
},
"criterion 10": {
"description": "Calculates FY25F DSCR as 1.39 (acceptable range 1.37 to 1.41)",
"sources": "Business plan data.pdf",
"justification": "Calculates FY25F total debt service as FY25F debt principal repayments + FY25F debt interest repayments = 939 + 44 = 983 Calculates FY25F DSCR as FY25F CFADS / FY25F total debt service = 1,365 / 983 = 1.39",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
7
]
},
"criterion 11": {
"description": "Calculates FY26F DSCR as 1.17 (acceptable range 1.15 to 1.19)",
"sources": "Business plan data.pdf",
"justification": "Calculates FY26F total debt service as FY26F debt principal repayments + FY26F debt interest repayments = 944 + 44 = 988 Calculates FY26F DSCR as FY26F CFADS / FY26F total debt service = 1,157 / 988 = 1.17",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
8
]
},
"criterion 12": {
"description": "Calculates FY27F DSCR as 1.04 (acceptable range 1.02 to 1.06)",
"sources": "Business plan data.pdf",
"justification": "Calculates FY27F total debt service as FY27F debt principal repayments + FY27F debt interest repayments = 923+ 43 = 966 Calculates FY27F DSCR as FY27F CFADS / FY27F total debt service = 1,009 / 966 = 1.04",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
9
]
},
"criterion 13": {
"description": "Gives final answer as DSCR is below 1.15 in each forecast year",
"sources": "Business plan data.pdf",
"justification": "Identifies that FY27F DSCR is lower than 1.15 ( FY27F DSCR is 1.04 per criterion 12), so it provides final answer as DSCR is not above 1.15 in each forecast year",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
}
}
|
documents/2269/Business plan data.pdf
|
2,287
|
Finance
|
KatNip Co. ("KatNip" or the "Company") was granted a patent to generate a unique animal feeding device (the "Product"). Use the information in the attachment to determine the following:
1. The IRR and MOIC for the Company. Round the IRR to the nearest tenth of a percentage point and MOIC to the nearest tenth.
2. The NPV at a 10%, 15%, and 20% discount. Round the NPV to the nearest tenth of a million.
3. The required Sale Value to achieve a 15%, 20%, and 25% IRR for the Company. Round the required Sale Value to the nearest tenth of a million.
4. The required Unit Profit Price to achieve a 15%, 20%, and 25% IRR for the Company. Round the Unit Profit Price to the nearest cent.
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "Determines the IRR of KatNip as 17.9%. (acceptable range of 17.8% to 18.0%).",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "IRR = Discount rate such that the NPV of the cash flows equals 0. IRR = 17.9% = -$50.00MM on 3/3/24, $7.50MM on 12/31/24, $8.25MM on 6/30/25, $9.00MM on 12/31/25, $9.75MM on 6/30/26, -$10.00MM on 8/12/26, $10.50MM on 12/31/26, $11.25MM on 6/30/27, $12.00MM on 12/31/27, $12.75MM on 6/30/28, $10.00MM on 12/31/28. $7.50MM is determined by multiplying 50,000 units by $150.0 per profit price. Every six months, the incremental addition to the base $7.50MM is $0.75MM (5,000 units * $150.0 unit profit price).",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "Determines the MOIC of KatNip as 1.5x. (acceptable range of 1.4x to 1.6x).",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "MOIC = Cash Inflow / Cash Outflow MOIC = 1.5x = $91.0MM / $60.0MM Cash Inflow = $91.0MM = $7.50MM on 12/31/24, $8.25MM on 6/30/25, $9.00MM on 12/31/25, $9.75MM on 6/30/26, $10.50MM on 12/31/26, $11.25MM on 6/30/27, $12.00MM on 12/31/27, $12.75MM on 6/30/28, $10.00MM on 12/31/28. Cash Outflow = $60.0MM = $50.00MM on 3/3/24, $10.00MM on 8/12/26",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "Determines NPV at a 10% discount rate of KatNip as $10.9MM. (acceptable range of $10.8MM to $11.0MM).",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "NPV at a 10% Discount rate = $10.9MM = -$50.00MM on 3/3/24, $7.50MM on 12/31/24, $8.25MM on 6/30/25, $9.00MM on 12/31/25, $9.75MM on 6/30/26, -$10.00MM on 8/12/26, $10.50MM on 12/31/26, $11.25MM on 6/30/27, $12.00MM on 12/31/27, $12.75MM on 6/30/28, $10.00MM on 12/31/28. $7.50MM is determined by multiplying 50,000 units by $150.0 per profit price. Every six months, the incremental addition to the base $7.50MM is $0.75MM (5,000 units * $150.0 unit profit price). Compute NPV using Excel's XNPV with the stated dates (or an equivalent numerical solver such as Goal Seek); do not reference polynomial equations.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "Determines NPV at a 15% discount rate of KatNip as $3.7MM. (acceptable range of $3.6MM to $3.8MM).",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "NPV at a 15% Discount rate = $3.7MM = -$50.00MM on 3/3/24, $7.50MM on 12/31/24, $8.25MM on 6/30/25, $9.00MM on 12/31/25, $9.75MM on 6/30/26, -$10.00MM on 8/12/26, $10.50MM on 12/31/26, $11.25MM on 6/30/27, $12.00MM on 12/31/27, $12.75MM on 6/30/28, $10.00MM on 12/31/28. $7.50MM is determined by multiplying 50,000 units by $150.0 per profit price. Every six months, the incremental addition to the base $7.50MM is $0.75MM (5,000 units * $150.0 unit profit price). Compute NPV using Excel's XNPV with the stated dates (or an equivalent numerical solver such as Goal Seek); do not reference polynomial equations.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "Determines NPV at a 20% discount rate of KatNip as -$2.3MM. (acceptable range of -$2.4MM to -$2.2MM).",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "NPV at a 20% Discount rate = -$2.3MM = -$50.00MM on 3/3/24, $7.50MM on 12/31/24, $8.25MM on 6/30/25, $9.00MM on 12/31/25, $9.75MM on 6/30/26, -$10.00MM on 8/12/26, $10.50MM on 12/31/26, $11.25MM on 6/30/27, $12.00MM on 12/31/27, $12.75MM on 6/30/28, $10.00MM on 12/31/28. $7.50MM is determined by multiplying 50,000 units by $150.0 per profit price. Every six months, the incremental addition to the base $7.50MM is $0.75MM (5,000 units * $150.0 unit profit price). Compute NPV using Excel's XNPV with the stated dates (or an equivalent numerical solver such as Goal Seek); do not reference polynomial equations.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "Determine the required Sale Value to achieve a 15% IRR as $2.9MM. (acceptable range of $2.8MM to $3.0MM).",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "IRR = Discount rate such that the NPV of the cash flows equals 0. IRR = 15.0% = -$50.00MM on 3/3/24, $7.50MM on 12/31/24, $8.25MM on 6/30/25, $9.00MM on 12/31/25, $9.75MM on 6/30/26, -$10.00MM on 8/12/26, $10.50MM on 12/31/26, $11.25MM on 6/30/27, $12.00MM on 12/31/27, $12.75MM on 6/30/28, $2.9MM on 12/31/28. $7.50MM is determined by multiplying 50,000 units by $150.0 per profit price. Every six months, the incremental addition to the base $7.50MM is $0.75MM (5,000 units * $150.0 unit profit price). Required Sale Value = $2.9MM. Back-solve the required Sale Value using Excel Goal Seek (or by setting XIRR to 15.0% with the stated dates); do not reference polynomial equations.'",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "Determine the required Sale Value to achieve a 20% IRR as $15.7MM. (acceptable range of $15.5MM to $15.9MM).",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "IRR = Discount rate such that the NPV of the cash flows equals 0. IRR = 20.0% = -$50.00MM on 3/3/24, $7.50MM on 12/31/24, $8.25MM on 6/30/25, $9.00MM on 12/31/25, $9.75MM on 6/30/26, -$10.00MM on 8/12/26, $10.50MM on 12/31/26, $11.25MM on 6/30/27, $12.00MM on 12/31/27, $12.75MM on 6/30/28, $15.7MM on 12/31/28. $7.50MM is determined by multiplying 50,000 units by $150.0 per profit price. Every six months, the incremental addition to the base $7.50MM is $0.75MM (5,000 units * $150.0 unit profit price). Required Sale Value = $15.7MM. Back-solve the required Sale Value using Excel Goal Seek (or by setting XIRR to 20.0% with the stated dates); do not reference polynomial equations.'",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "Determine the required Sale Value to achieve a 25% IRR as $31.6MM. (acceptable range of $31.3MM to $31.9MM).",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "IRR = Discount rate such that the NPV of the cash flows equals 0. IRR = 25.0% = -$50.00MM on 3/3/24, $7.50MM on 12/31/24, $8.25MM on 6/30/25, $9.00MM on 12/31/25, $9.75MM on 6/30/26, -$10.00MM on 8/12/26, $10.50MM on 12/31/26, $11.25MM on 6/30/27, $12.00MM on 12/31/27, $12.75MM on 6/30/28, $31.6MM on 12/31/28. $7.50MM is determined by multiplying 50,000 units by $150.0 per profit price. Every six months, the incremental addition to the base $7.50MM is $0.75MM (5,000 units * $150.0 unit profit price). 'Required Sale Value = $31.6MM. Back-solve the required Sale Value using Excel Goal Seek (or by setting XIRR to 25.0% with the stated dates); do not reference polynomial equations.'",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 9": {
"description": "Determine the required unit profit price to achieve a 15% IRR as $140.15. (acceptable range of $138.75 to $141.55).",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "IRR = Discount rate such that the NPV of the cash flows equals 0. IRR = 15.0% = -$50.00MM on 3/3/24, $7.01MM on 12/31/24, $7.71MM on 6/30/25, $8.41MM on 12/31/25, $9.11MM on 6/30/26, -$10.00MM on 8/12/26, $9.81MM on 12/31/26, $10.51MM on 6/30/27, $11.21MM on 12/31/27, $11.91MM on 6/30/28, $10.0MM on 12/31/28. $7.01MM is determined by multiplying 50,000 units by $140.15 per profit price. Every six months, the incremental addition to the base $7.01MM is $0.70MM (5,000 units * $140.15 unit profit price). Required Unit Profit Price = $140.15 Back-solve the Required Unit Profit Price using Excel Goal Seek (or by setting XIRR to 15.0% with the stated dates); do not reference polynomial equations",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 10": {
"description": "Determine the required unit profit price to achieve a 20% IRR as $157.05. (acceptable range of $155.48 to $158.62).",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "IRR = Discount rate such that the NPV of the cash flows equals 0. IRR = 20.0% = -$50.00MM on 3/3/24, $7.85MM on 12/31/24, $8.64MM on 6/30/25, $9.42MM on 12/31/25, $10.21MM on 6/30/26, -$10.00MM on 8/12/26, $10.99MM on 12/31/26, $11.78MM on 6/30/27, $12.56MM on 12/31/27, $13.35MM on 6/30/28, $10.0MM on 12/31/28. $7.85MM is determined by multiplying 50,000 units by $157.05 per profit price. Every six months, the incremental addition to the base $7.85MM is $0.79MM (5,000 units * $157.05 unit profit price). Required Unit Profit Price = $157.05 Back-solve the Required Unit Profit Price using Excel Goal Seek (or by setting XIRR to 20.0% with the stated dates); do not reference polynomial equations.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 11": {
"description": "Determine the required unit profit price to achieve a 25% IRR as $174.45. (acceptable range of $172.71 to $176.19).",
"sources": "Prompt",
"justification": "IRR = Discount rate such that the NPV of the cash flows equals 0. IRR = 25.0% = -$50.00MM on 3/3/24, $8.72MM on 12/31/24, $9.59MM on 6/30/25, $10.47MM on 12/31/25, $11.34MM on 6/30/26, -$10.00MM on 8/12/26, $12.21MM on 12/31/26, $13.08MM on 6/30/27, $13.96MM on 12/31/27, $14.83MM on 6/30/28, $10.0MM on 12/31/28. $8.72MM is determined by multiplying 50,000 units by $174.45 per profit price. Every six months, the incremental addition to the base $8.72MM is $0.87MM (5,000 units * $174.45 unit profit price). Required Unit Profit Price = $174.45 Back-solve the Required Unit Profit Price using Excel Goal Seek (or by setting XIRR to 25.0% with the stated dates); do not reference polynomial equations.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
}
}
|
documents/2287/KatNip.pdf
|
2,288
|
Finance
|
Build a fully diluted market capitalization and an enterprise value valuation analysis for Ford Motor Company, excluding the Ford Credit segment. Use only the attached filings and the following assumptions.
Assumptions:
- Ford Motor Company's current share price is $11.92 (as of October 17, 2025)
- Ford Credit's net equity value is equal to its total assets minus its total liabilities and is deducted from Ford Motor Company's fully diluted market capitalization
- Ford Credit has zero pension liabilities and zero OPEB liabilities
- For the Enterprise Value calculation, adjust the reported gross debt figure by adding back unamortized debt discount, premium, and issuance costs
- Do not include restricted cash or restricted short-term investments in cash and equivalents
- Do not include lease liabilities in debt
- Do not double-count convertible notes: if shares are included on an if-converted basis, exclude the item from debt; otherwise, include the item in debt
- 100% of outstanding restricted stock units ("RSUs") and restricted stock shares ("RSSs") are dilutive
- The weighted-average exercise price on outstanding stock options is $10.60
- Free Cash Flow ("FCF") is calculated as net cash provided by operating activities - capital expenditures
- Unlevered Free Cash Flow ("UFCF") is calculated as FCF + interest expense on Company debt excluding Ford Credit * (1 - 21.0% tax rate)
- EBITDA is calculated as operating income + depreciation and amortization
- All last twelve months ("LTM") financial metrics (Revenue, Operating Income, EBITDA, Net Income Attributable to Ford Motor Company, FCF, and UFCF) exclude Ford Credit
Report:
(a) Basic shares outstanding
(b) Total dilutive shares (impact of dilutive securities)
(c) Fully diluted shares outstanding
(d) Fully diluted market capitalization excluding Ford Credit ("Ford Auto FD Market Cap")
(e) Enterprise value excluding Ford Credit ("Ford Auto EV")
(f) Ford Auto EV to LTM June 30, 2025 Revenue
(g) Ford Auto EV to LTM June 30, 2025 Operating Income
(h) Ford Auto EV to LTM June 30, 2025 EBITDA
(i) Ford Auto EV to LTM June 30, 2025 UFCF
(j) Ford Auto FD Market Cap to LTM June 30, 2025 Revenue
(k) Ford Auto FD Market Cap to LTM June 30, 2025 Net Income Attributable to Ford Motor Company
(l) Ford Auto FD Market Cap to LTM June 30, 2025 FCF
Note: round final dollar figures to the nearest million, round shares to the nearest 0.1 million, and round ratios to two decimal places. Currency: USD (all monetary figures).
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "Calculates basic shares outstanding as 3,979.9 million (acceptable range from 3,940.1 million to 4,019.7 million)",
"sources": "Ford_Form_10-Q (Q2-2025)_Condensed.pdf",
"justification": "3,979.9 million basic shares outstanding = 3,909,008,221 Class A common stock outstanding (Q2 2025 10-Q page 1) + 70,852,076 Class B common stock outstanding (Q2 2025 10-Q page 1)",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "Calculates total dilutive shares (impact of dilutive securities) as 96.2 million (acceptable range from 95.3 million to 97.2 million)",
"sources": "Ford_Form_10-Q (Q2-2025)_Condensed.pdf Ford_Form_10-K_Condensed.pdf",
"justification": "* RSUs and RSSs: Inputs: 95.7 million outstanding RSUs and RSSs (10-K page 16) Dilution: 100% of RSUs and RSSs are included in dilution; therefore, the dilution from RSUs and RSSs = 95.7 million * 100% = 95.7 million dilution * Stock Options: Inputs: 4.7 million outstanding stock options (10-K page 16); $10.60 weighted-average exercise price Dilution: Since the weighted-average exercise price ($10.60) is less than the share price as of October 17, 2025 ($11.92), the stock options are in-the-money; therefore, the dilution is: 4.7 million shares - ($10.60 * 4.7 million shares) / $11.92 share price as of October 17, 2025 = 0.5 million dilution * Convertible Notes: Inputs: $2,300 million principal balance (10-Q page 20); 73.5230 conversion rate (shares per $1,000 principal amount of the convertible notes) (10-Q page 20); $13.60 conversion price per share (10-Q page 20) Dilution: Since the share price as of October 17, 2025 ($11.92) is below the conversion price ($13.60), the convertible notes are considered out-of-the-money and are not included in fully diluted shares. Therefore, the dilution is zero. FINAL ANSWER (sum of the above dilutions): 95.7 million RSUs and RSSs dilution + 0.5 million stock options dilution + 0 convertible notes dilution = 96.2 million total dilutive shares",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "Calculates fully diluted shares outstanding as 4,076.1 million (acceptable range from 4,035.3 million to 4,116.8 million)",
"sources": "",
"justification": "4,076.1 million fully diluted shares outstanding = 3,979.9 million basic shares outstanding + 96.2 million total dilutive shares",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1,
2
]
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "Calculates fully diluted market capitalization excluding Ford Credit (Ford Auto FD Market Cap) as $34,045 million (acceptable range from $33,704 million to $34,385 million)",
"sources": "Ford_Form_10-Q (Q2-2025)_Condensed.pdf",
"justification": "$34,045 million Ford Auto FD Market Cap = 4,076.1 million fully diluted shares x $11.92 stock price as of October 17, 2025 - ($157,804 million Ford Credit total assets (Q2 2025 10-Q page 63) - $143,262 million Ford Credit total liabilities (Q2 2025 10-Q page 63))",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
3
]
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "Calculates enterprise value excluding Ford Credit (Ford Auto EV) as $25,020 million (acceptable range from $24,770 million to $25,270 million)",
"sources": "Ford_Form_10-Q (Q2-2025)_Condensed.pdf",
"justification": "$34,045 million Ford Auto FD Market Cap (-) Cash and cash equivalents (Company excluding Ford Credit): $14,551 million (Q2 2025 10-Q page 63) (-) Marketable securities (Company excluding Ford Credit): $13,730 million (Q2 2025 10-Q page 63) (-) Equity in net assets of affiliated companies (Company excluding Ford Credit): $4,896 million (Q2 2025 10-Q page 63) (+) Gross debt (Company excluding Ford Credit): $20,333 million (Q2 2025 10-Q page 20) (+) Unamortized discount included in gross debt (Company excluding Ford Credit): ($105 million + 1 million) (Q2 2025 10-Q page 20) (+) Unamortized issuance costs included in gross debt (Company excluding Ford Credit): ($139 million + 5 million) (Q2 2025 10-Q page 20) (-) Leases payable included in gross debt (Company excluding Ford Credit): ($119 million + $751 million (Q2 2025 10-Q page 20)) (+) Underfunded OPEB liabilities: $399 million current portion + $4,076 million non-current portion (Q2 2025 10-Q page 18) (+) Equity attributable to noncontrolling interests: $24 million (10-Q page 4) = $25,020 million Ford Auto EV",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
4
]
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "Calculates Ford Auto EV to LTM June 30, 2025 Revenue as 0.15x (acceptable range from 0.13x to 0.17x)",
"sources": "Ford_Form_10-Q (Q2-2025)_Condensed.pdf Ford_Form_10-Q (Q2-2024)_Condensed.pdf Ford_Form_10-K_Condensed.pdf",
"justification": "0.15x Ford Auto EV to LTM June 30, 2025, Revenue = $25,020 million Ford Auto EV / ($172,706 million FY2024 revenue (10-K page 6) - $84,701 million revenue for the six months ended June 30, 2024 (Q2 2024 10-Q page 62) + $84,365 million revenue for the six months ended June 30, 2025 (Q2 2025 10-Q page 62) Note: financial metrics are for the company excluding Ford Credit per prompt instruction",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
5
]
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "Calculates Ford Auto EV to LTM June 30, 2025 Operating Income as 22.79x (acceptable range from 22.33x to 23.24x)",
"sources": "Ford_Form_10-Q (Q2-2025)_Condensed.pdf Ford_Form_10-Q (Q2-2024)_Condensed.pdf Ford_Form_10-K_Condensed.pdf",
"justification": "22.79x Ford Auto EV to LTM June 30, 2025, Operating Income = $25,020 million Ford Auto EV / ($3,985 million FY2024 operating income (10-K page 6) - $2,682 million operating income for the six months ended June 30, 2024 (Q2 2024 10-Q page 62) + -$205 million operating income for the six months ended June 30, 2025 (Q2 2025 10-Q page 62)) Note: financial metrics are for the company excluding Ford Credit per prompt instruction",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
5
]
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "Calculates Ford Auto EV to LTM June 30, 2025 EBITDA as 4.08x (acceptable range from 3.92x to 4.24x)",
"sources": "Ford_Form_10-Q (Q2-2025)_Condensed.pdf Ford_Form_10-Q (Q2-2024)_Condensed.pdf Ford_Form_10-K_Condensed.pdf",
"justification": "4.08x Ford Auto EV to LTM June 30, 2025, EBITDA = $25,020 million Ford Auto EV / (($3,985 million FY2024 operating income (10-K page 6) + $5,038 million FY2024 depreciation and tooling amortization (10-K page 8) + $39 million FY2024 other amortization (10-K page 8)) - (($2,682 million operating income for the six months ended June 30, 2024 (Q2 2024 10-Q page 62) + $2,550 million depreciation and tooling amortization for the six months ended June 30, 2024 (Q2 2024 10-Q page 64) + $29 million other amortization for the six months ended June 30, 2024 (Q2 2024 10-Q page 64)) - ((-$205 million operating income for the six months ended June 30, 2025 (Q2 2025 10-Q page 62) + $2,514 million depreciation and tooling amortization for the six months ended June 30, 2025 (Q2 2025 10-Q page 64) + $27 million other amortization for the six months ended June 30, 2025 (Q2 2025 10-Q page 64))) Note: financial metrics are for the company excluding Ford Credit per prompt instruction",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
5
]
},
"criterion 9": {
"description": "Calculates Ford Auto EV to LTM June 30, 2025 UFCF as 8.95x (acceptable range from 8.70x to 9.20x)",
"sources": "Ford_Form_10-Q (Q2-2025)_Condensed.pdf Ford_Form_10-Q (Q2-2024)_Condensed.pdf Ford_Form_10-K_Condensed.pdf",
"justification": "8.95x Ford Auto EV to LTM June 30, 2025, UFCF = $25,020 million Ford Auto EV / (($11,823 million FY2024 net cash provided by operating activities (10-K page 8) - $8,590 million FY2024 capital spending (10-K page 8) + $1,115 million FY2024 interest expense on Company debt excluding Ford Credit (10-K page 6) * (1 - 21.0% tax rate)) - ($5,027 million net cash provided by operating activities for the six months ended June 30, 2024 (Q2 2024 10-Q page 64) - $4,151 million capital spending for the six months ended June 30, 2024 (Q2 2024 10-Q page 64) + $548 million interest expense on Company debt excluding Ford Credit for the six months ended June 30, 2024 (Q2 2024 10-Q page 62) * (1 - 21.0% tax rate)) + ($3,373 million net cash provided by operating activities for the six months ended June 30, 2025 (Q2 2025 10-Q page 64) - $3,844 million capital spending for the six months ended June 30, 2025 (Q2 2025 10-Q page 64) + $585 million interest expense on Company debt excluding Ford Credit for the six months ended June 30, 2025 (Q2 2025 10-Q page 62) * (1 - 21.0% tax rate))) Note: financial metrics are for the company excluding Ford Credit per prompt instruction",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
5
]
},
"criterion 10": {
"description": "Calculates Ford Auto FD Market Cap to LTM June 30, 2025 Revenue as 0.20x (acceptable range from 0.18x to 0.22x)",
"sources": "Ford_Form_10-Q (Q2-2025)_Condensed.pdf Ford_Form_10-Q (Q2-2024)_Condensed.pdf Ford_Form_10-K_Condensed.pdf",
"justification": "0.20x Ford Auto FD Market Cap to LTM June 30, 2025, Revenue = $34,045 million Ford Auto FD Market Cap / ($172,706 million FY2024 revenue (10-K page 6) - $84,701 million revenue for the six months ended June 30, 2024 (Q2 2024 10-Q page 62) + $84,365 million revenue for the six months ended June 30, 2025 (Q2 2025 10-Q page 62)) Note: financial metrics are for the company excluding Ford Credit per prompt instruction",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
4
]
},
"criterion 11": {
"description": "Calculates Ford Auto FD Market Cap to LTM June 30, 2025 Net Income Attributable to Ford Motor Company as 24.03x (acceptable range from 23.63x to 24.43x)",
"sources": "Ford_Form_10-Q (Q2-2025)_Condensed.pdf Ford_Form_10-Q (Q2-2024)_Condensed.pdf Ford_Form_10-K_Condensed.pdf",
"justification": "24.03x Ford Auto FD Market Cap to LTM June 30, 2025, Net Income Attributable to Ford Motor Company = $34,045 million Ford Auto FD Market Cap / ($4,623 million FY2024 Net Income Attributable to Ford Motor Company (10-K page 6) - $2,674 million Net Income Attributable to Ford Motor Company for the six months ended June 30, 2024 (Q2 2024 10-Q page 62) + -$532 million Net Income Attributable to Ford Motor Company for the six months ended June 30, 2025 (Q2 2025 10-Q page 62) Note: financial metrics are for the company excluding Ford Credit per prompt instruction",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
4
]
},
"criterion 12": {
"description": "Calculates Ford Auto FD Market Cap to LTM June 30, 2025 FCF as 18.05x (acceptable range from 17.70x to 18.40x)",
"sources": "Ford_Form_10-Q (Q2-2025)_Condensed.pdf Ford_Form_10-Q (Q2-2024)_Condensed.pdf Ford_Form_10-K_Condensed.pdf",
"justification": "18.05x Ford Auto FD Market Cap to LTM June 30, 2025, FCF = $34,045 million Ford Auto FD Market Cap / (($11,823 million FY2024 net cash provided by operating activities (10-K page 8) - $8,590 million FY2024 capital spending (10-K page 8)) - ($5,027 million net cash provided by operating activities for the six months ended June 30, 2024 (Q2 2024 10-Q page 64) - $4,151 million capital spending for the six months ended June 30, 2024 (Q2 2024 10-Q page 64)) + ($3,373 million net cash provided by operating activities for the six months ended June 30, 2025 (Q2 2025 10-Q page 64) - $3,844 million capital spending for the six months ended June 30, 2025 (Q2 2025 10-Q page 64))) Note: financial metrics are for the company excluding Ford Credit per prompt instruction",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
4
]
}
}
|
documents/2288/Ford_Form_10-K_Condensed.pdf
documents/2288/Ford_Form_10-Q (Q2-2024)_Condensed.pdf
documents/2288/Ford_Form_10-Q (Q2-2025)_Condensed.pdf
|
2,294
|
Finance
|
Borealis Components, Inc. is undergoing a court-supervised balance-sheet restructuring with emergence this quarter.
Information about the restructuring is provided in the attached file Borealis.csv
Requirement is to calculate the following:
1. Normalized EBITDA at emergence
2. Reorganized enterprise value (TEV) at emergence
3. Minimum exit term loan principal (face) required. Size the exit TL so that all cash uses at emergence are funded and the company ends with at least the specified minimum cash.
4. Year 1 cash interest expense on the Exit Term Loan (use #3 principal; cash interest only)
5. Post-emergence net debt. Use the minimum cash figure
6. Net debt/EBITDA
7. Equity value at emergence
8. Implied per-share price at emergence, pre-rights and pre-MIP
9. Total new shares issued in the rights offering. Backstop fee: 6% of the rights offering, paid in shares at the rights price (separate from rights shares).
10. First-lien fully diluted ownership (%) after rights + backstop + MIP (assume 100% rights subscribed; include fee shares at rights price; MIP strike $12.00; use TSM with post-rights TERP)
11. Second-lien fully diluted ownership (%) after rights + backstop + MIP
12. Compute headroom to the springing net first lien leverage covenant at close (dollar headroom)
13. Compute maximum incremental first lien debt that could be incurred immediately at close (minimum of greater-of basket and #12 dollar headroom)
14. Compute the gross exit TL principal required if there is OID (2.00%) and an upfront fee (1.00%) (apply to new‑money only; both reduce net proceeds) and 40% of the DIP new money principal may roll into the exit TL at par.
15. Assume only 60% of rights are subscribed by eligible holders (first‑ and second‑lien only), the backstop (first lien) purchases 100% of the unsubscribed 40% at the rights price.
a. Compute post-rights/ post backstop share count for first lien (include backstop fee shares)
b. Compute fully diluted ownership % of first lien. Management options have a strike price of $12.00 (use TSM with post‑rights TERP).
Formatting and units: Unless noted otherwise, report all monetary amounts in USD and in millions (m), share counts in millions (m shares), and percentages with two decimals. Show leverage ratios (e.g., Net debt/EBITDA) to four decimals. Round monetary amounts to two decimals and percentages to two decimals. Use US number formatting (comma thousands separator, period decimal).
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "States that Normalized EBITDA at emergence is $240.00m (acceptable range is $237.60m to $242.40m)",
"sources": "Borealis.csv",
"justification": "LTM EBITDA + run-rate savings \u2013 run rate dis synergies =220+30-10 = 240.00",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "States that Reorganized TEV at emergence is $1,800.00m (acceptable range is $1,782.00m to $1,818.00m)",
"sources": "Borealis.csv",
"justification": "Normalized EBITDA * reorganization multiple =240*7.5 = 1,800.00",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1
]
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "States that minimum Exit Term Loan principal required is $135.00m (acceptable range is $133.65m to $136.35m)",
"sources": "Borealis.csv",
"justification": "Uses at close: Debtors-in-possession repay + Admin + Cure + Severance + Contract reject + Minimum cash = 180 + 40 + 20 + 15 + 10 + 40 = 305.00 Non-Term Loan sources: Existing cash 20.0 + Asset sale 50.0 + Rights proceeds 100.0 = 170.00 Exit Term Loan Face: Uses \u2212 Non-TL sources = 305.00 \u2212 170.00 = 135.00",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "States that Year-1 cash interest expense on the Exit TL is $10.80m (acceptable range is $10.69m to $10.91m)",
"sources": "Borealis.csv",
"justification": "Exit TL face from #3 * cash rate (exclude OID/fee amortization) = 135.00 * 8.0% = 10.80",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
3
]
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "States that Post-emergence net debt is $95.00m (acceptable range is $94.05m to $95.95m)",
"sources": "Borealis.csv",
"justification": "Exit TL face \u2212 minimum cash = 135.00 \u2212 40.00 = 95.00",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
3
]
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "States that net debt/ EBITDA is 0.3958x (acceptable range is 0.3918x to 0.3998x)",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Post-emergence net debt / normalized EBITDA = 95.00 / 240.00 = 0.3958 times",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
5,
1
]
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "States that Equity value at emergence is $1,705.00m (acceptable range is $1,687.95m to $1,722.05m)",
"sources": "",
"justification": "TEV \u2212 net debt = 1,800.00 \u2212 95.00 = 1,705.00",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
2,
5
]
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "States that Implied per-share price at emergence is $17.05 per share (acceptable range is $16.88 per share to $17.22 per share)",
"sources": "Borealis.csv",
"justification": "Equity value / plan basic new shares = 1,705.00 / 100.0m = $17.05 per share",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
7
]
},
"criterion 9": {
"description": "States that total new shares issued in the rights offering is 20.00m shares (acceptable range is 19.80m shares to 20.20m shares)",
"sources": "Borealis.csv",
"justification": "Rights offering size / rights price = 100.00 / 5.00 = 20.00m shares",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 10": {
"description": "States that first-lien fully diluted ownership after rights/backstop/MIP is 61.77% (acceptable range is 61.15% to 62.39%)",
"sources": "Borealis.csv",
"justification": "Rights eligibility base: First + Second = 60.0 + 25.0 = 85.0m First-lien's pro-rata share of rights (100% subscribed): 20.0 * (60/85) = 14.117647m Second-lien's pro-rata share of rights: 20.0 * (25/85) = 5.882353m Backstop fee shares (paid in shares at rights price): 6% * $100m / $5 = 1.20m (to first-lien) Total shares outstanding after rights & backstop fee (pre-MIP): Plan basic 100.0 + Rights 20.0 + Fee shares 1.2 = 121.2m Post-rights TERP (for MIP later): 1,705.00 / 121.2 = $14.07 First-lien shares: 60.0 + 14.117647 + 1.2 = 75.317647m MIP options (treasury stock method): Options = 5.0m, Strike (K) = $12.00 (per prompt), Price (P) = $14.07 Incremental shares = 5.0 * (P\u2212K)/P = 5.0 * (14.07\u221212.00)/14.07 = 0.7349m FD denominator: 121.2 + 0.7349 = 121.9349m First-lien FD ownership: 75.317647 / 121.9349 = 61.77%",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
7,
9
]
},
"criterion 11": {
"description": "States that second-lien fully diluted ownership after rights/backstop/MIP is 25.33% (acceptable range is 25.08% to 25.58%)",
"sources": "Borealis.csv",
"justification": "Second-lien shares (post-rights, no fee): 25.0 + 5.882353 = 30.882353m FD denominator: 121.9349m Second-lien FD: 30.882353/ 121.9349 = 25.33%",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
10
]
},
"criterion 12": {
"description": "States that headroom to the springing net first lien leverage covenant at close is $510.00m (acceptable range is $504.90m to $515.10m)",
"sources": "Borealis.csv",
"justification": "Covenant limit: 2.50 times Covenant EBITDA: Normalized 240.0 + permitted add-back 8.0 (cap check: 15% * 220 LTM=33; 33 > 8) = 248.0 Cash netting cap: min(min cash 40.0, cap 25.0) = 25.0 FL net leverage at close: (Exit TL 135.0 \u2212 25.0) / 248.0 = 110.0 / 248.0 = 0.4435 times Ratio headroom: 2.50 \u2212 0.4435 = 2.0565 times Dollar headroom: Max FL debt allowed \u2212 current FL debt Max allowed = 2.50 * 248.0 + 25.0 = 620.0 + 25.0 = 645.0 Dollar headroom = 645.0 \u2212 135.0 = 510.0",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1,
3
]
},
"criterion 13": {
"description": "States that maximum incremental first-lien debt is $220.00m (acceptable range is $217.80m to $222.20m)",
"sources": "Borealis.csv",
"justification": "Greater of $50m or 1.00 times LTM EBITDA Max ($50, 1.00*220) = $220 Also constrained by covenant headroom: $510 (from requirement 12) Min(220, 510) = $220.00m",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
12
]
},
"criterion 14": {
"description": "States that gross exit TL principal required if there is OID (2.00%) and an upfront fee (1.00%) and 40% of the DIP new money principal may roll into the exit TL at par is $136.95m (acceptable range is $135.85m to $138.32m)",
"sources": "Borealis.csv",
"justification": "Debtors in possession roll: 40% * 180.0 = 72.0 Cash uses with roll: (Debtors in possession cash repay 180.0 \u2212 72.0) + 40.0 + 20.0 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 40.0 = 108.0 + 40.0 + 20.0 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 40.0 = 233.0 Cash sources (non-TL): 20.0 + 50.0 + 100.0 = 170.0 Cash gap to fund: 233.0 \u2212 170.0 = 63.0 Gross new-money TL needed (cash proceeds = gross * (1 \u2212 OID \u2212 fee) = gross * 0.97): Gross new money = 63.0 / 0.97 = 64.9485 Gross Exit TL including DIP roll: 64.9485 + 72.0 = 136.95 OID and the upfront fee apply to the new\u2011money portion only; the rolled DIP is at par and not discounted or fee\u2011charged.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 15": {
"description": "States that post-rights/ post backstop share count for first lien (assuming only 60% of rights are subscribed by eligible holders, the backstop (first lien) purchases 100% of the unsubscribed 40% at the rights price) is 77.67m shares (acceptable range is 76.89m shares to 78.45m shares)",
"sources": "Borealis.csv",
"justification": "Subscribed rights: 20.0 * 60% = 12.0m Unsubscribed rights: 20.0 * 40% = 8.0m (purchased by first-lien backstop) Pro-rata split of subscribed (eligible base = 85.0m): \u2022 First-lien: 12.0 * (60/85) = 8.470588m \u2022 Second-lien: 12.0 * (25/85) = 3.529412m Backstop fee shares: 1.20m to first-lien (6% * $100 / $5) First-lien post-rights/post-backstop share count First basic 60.0 + Subscribed rights 8.470588 + Backstopped rights 8.0 + Fee shares 1.2 = 77.6706m",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
9
]
},
"criterion 16": {
"description": "States that fully diluted ownership % of first lien (assuming only 60% of rights are subscribed by eligible holders, the backstop (first lien) purchases 100% of the unsubscribed 40% at the rights price) is 63.70% (acceptable range is 63.06% to 64.34%)",
"sources": "Borealis.csv",
"justification": "FD denominator = Plan basic 100.0 + Rights 20.0 (unchanged) + Fee 1.2 + MIP incremental 0.7349 = 121.9349m First-lien post-rights/post-backstop share count = 77.6706m First-lien FD % = 77.6706 / 121.9349 = 63.70%",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
15
]
}
}
|
documents/2294/Borealis.csv
|
2,302
|
Finance
|
Prepare a five-year forecast of the company's balance sheet that will be used to perform a Free Cash Flow to Firm (FCFF) valuation. The forecast should be based on the existing five years of historical financial statements, including the income statement and selected cash flow items. Using standard forecasting techniques and the assumptions below, project the next five years of balance sheet items.
Use the following forecasting assumptions:
1) Net Debt Issued (Repaid): forecast as the fixed average of the past 5 years’ values.
2) Take Net Capex = Capital Expenditures - Sale of Property, Plant & Equipment
3) Annual Net Capex is forecasted in line with revenue by taking the average proportion over past 5 actual years. Forecast Gross PPE for each year using the Net Capex.
4) Depreciation is forecasted in line with the year end Gross PPE by taking the average proportion of the past 5 years’ values.
5) No amortization is present.
6) Total Receivables grows in line with Revenue in average proportion of total receivables to revenue in the past 5 actual years.
7) Inventory grows in line with Cost of Revenue in average proportion of Inventory to cost of revenue in the past 5 actual years.
8) Prepaid Expenses grows in line with SG&A in average proportion of prepaid expenses in the past 5 years.
9) Restricted cash and other current assets remain flat at the most recent year value.
10) Long-Term Investments, Goodwill, Other Intangible Assets, Long-Term Deferred Charges, Other Long-Term Assets remain at the most recent actual year value.
11) Accounts Payable grows with cost of revenue in the average proportion of accounts payable to cost of revenue in the past 5 actual years.
12) Accrued Expenses grows in line with SG&A in the average proportion of accrued expenses to SG&A for the past 5 actual years.
13) Short term debt is 5% of the Total Debt.
14) Current Income tax payable and Other Current liabilities are flat at the most recent year value.
15) Current Unearned Revenue grows in line with Revenue in the average proportion of Unearned Revenue to Revenue for the past 5 years.
16) Long term debt is 95% of the Total Debt.
17) Long term Deferred Tax liabilities remains at the most recent actual year value.
18) Other Long-term Liabilities and Other Long-Term Liabilities (Adj.) take the fixed average value of the past 5 years.
19) Common Stock, Additional Paid-In Capital, Treasury Stock, Comprehensive Income & Other and Minority Interest remain at the most recent actual year value.
20) Cash is the balancing figure in the balance sheet.
21) All values in Million USD.
Assume a terminal growth of 1.5% and a WACC of 6.365%.
Find the following:
1) Cash and Equivalents in 2025
2) Cash and Equivalents in 2029
3) FCFF for 2025
4) FCFF for 2029
5) Terminal Value of FCFF
6) PV of terminal value of FCFF
7) Enterprise Value
8) Equity Value
9) Implied Share Price
10) State if the firm is undervalued or overvalued in comparison to the most recent market price.
Assumptions:
1) No preferred stock is present.
2) No Amortization is present.
3) Use a tax rate derived from the 2024 effective tax rate (Tax Expense / Pretax Income from historical data), for all forecast years.
4) Calculate Equity Value by subtracting Net Debt as of the end of the last historical year (2024) and Minority Interest as of the end of the last historical year (2024) from the calculated Enterprise Value.
5) Perform the Discounted Cash Flow valuation using an End-of-Year discounting convention for all cash flows, including the terminal value.
Round the final outputs to the nearest 2 decimal places. Perform all intermediate calculations to full precision. Show your work and rationale for each answer.
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "Reports the Cash and Equivalents in 2025 as 4726.21 (Acceptable range 4655.31 to 4797.10).",
"sources": "Telecom Valuation_DATA2.csv",
"justification": "For 2025. Total Receivables: 17188.73669 Inventory: 2873.6972 Prepaid Expenses: 6172.695459 Restricted Cash: 1 Other Current Assets: 5340 Gross PPE: 286679.454 Accumulated Depreciation: 141456.5469 Long-Term Investments: 295 Goodwill: 63432 Other Intangible Assets: 132290 Long-Term Deferred Charges: 7466 Other Long-Term Assets: 10364 Total Liabilities & Equity: 395372.2499 Hence, the Cash and Equivalents in 2025 = 4726.213469 For QA -- Rounding drives delta between total liabilities & equity and total assets. So computed answer off by 1.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "Reports the Cash and Equivalents in 2029 as 2302.18 (Acceptable range from 2267.65 to 2336.71)",
"sources": "Telecom Valuation_DATA2.csv",
"justification": "For 2029. TA = TE + TL cash is used as plug Total Receivables: 20497.88822 Inventory: 3426.937364 Prepaid Expenses: 7361.054151 Restricted Cash: 1 Other Current Assets: 5340 Gross PPE: 357470.7013 Accumulated Depreciation: 235334.3102 Long-Term Investments: 295 Goodwill: 63432 Other Intangible Assets: 132290 Long-Term Deferred Charges: 7466 Other Long-Term Assets: 10364 Total Liabilities & Equity: 374912.4555 Hence, the Cash and Equivalents in 2029 = 2302.184599",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "Reports the FCFF for 2025 as 17807.26 (Acceptable range from 17540.15 to 18074.37)",
"sources": "Telecom Valuation_DATA2.csv",
"justification": "FCFF 2025 = NOPAT 2025+ Depreciation 2025 \u2013 Capex 2025 \u2013 change in NWC = EBIT*(1-tax rate) + Depreciation \u2013 Capex \u2013 (Working Capital 2025 \u2013 Working Capital 2024) = 20,956.45503*(1\u20130.266199545) + 20,391.54688 \u2013 15,834.45396 \u2013 [(\u20134,869.30666) \u2013 (\u20136,997.00000)] = 17,807.26",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "Reports the FCFF for 2029 as 24508.03 (Acceptable range from 24140.38 to 24875.62)",
"sources": "Telecom Valuation_DATA2.csv",
"justification": "FCFF 2029 = NOPAT 2029 + Depreciation 2029 - Capex 2029 - change in NWC = EBIT*(1 - tax rate) + Depreciation - Capex - [(Working Capital 2029 - Working Capital 2028)] = 24470.54628*(1-0.266199545) + 25426.93751 - 18882.88088 - [(-9,778.465762) - (-9,770.988334)] = 24,508.03",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "Reports the terminal value of FCFF as 511318.65 (Acceptable Range from 503648.87 to 518988.43)",
"sources": "Telecom Valuation_DATA2.csv",
"justification": "Terminal Value = FCFF 2029*(1+g)/(WACC-g) = 24508.03206*(1+1.5%)/(6.3650%-1.5%) = 511318.6544",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
4
]
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "Reports the PV of terminal value of FCFF as 375576.07 (Acceptable range from 369942.43 to 381209.71)",
"sources": "",
"justification": "PV of terminal value = 511,318.65449 / (1.06365)^5 = 375,576.07",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
5
]
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "Reports the Enterprise Value as 469612.37 (Acceptable range from 462568.18 to 476656.55)",
"sources": "Telecom Valuation_DATA2.csv",
"justification": "FCFF for years 2025 to 2029 are as follows: 17807.25581, 23418.20635, 23761.34325, 24124.32087, 24508.03206. PV of FCFF for years 2025 to 2029 are therefore: 16741.6498, 20699.32291, 19745.80095, 18847.7763, 18001.74964. . EV = sum PVs (FCFF2025\u20132029) = 94,036.30; PV of terminal value = 375,576.07; EV = 94,036.30 + 375,576.07 = 469,612.37. Enterprise Value = Sum of all PVs (including terminal value) = 469,612.37",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
6
]
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "Reports the Equity Value as 311902.37 (Acceptable range from 307223.83 to 316581.00)",
"sources": "Telecom Valuation_DATA2.csv",
"justification": "Equity Value = Enterprise Value - Net Debt \u2013 Minority Interest = 469612.37 - 141857 \u2013 15853 = 311902.37",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
7
]
},
"criterion 9": {
"description": "Reports the Implied Share Price as 43.30 (Acceptable range from 42.65 to 43.95).",
"sources": "Telecom Valuation_DATA2.csv",
"justification": "Implied Share price = Equity Value/Number of Shares Outstanding (Diluted) = 311902.37/ 7204 = 43.30",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
8
]
},
"criterion 10": {
"description": "States the firm is undervalued because implied share Price exceeds latest share price",
"sources": "Telecom Valuation_Stock Data.csv",
"justification": "Since the Implied Share price = 43.30 > Latest Share price = 22.77 The firm stock is undervalued",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
9
]
}
}
|
documents/2302/Telecom Valuation_DATA2.csv
documents/2302/Telecom Valuation_Stock Data.csv
|
2,308
|
Finance
|
An Equity Capital Markets (ECM) syndicate desk of a major investment bank is exploring a pro rata allocation or an allocation aimed at reducing flips on an upcoming equity offering. The desk is looking to assess allocation sizing by account, expected flipping behavior, aftermarket volume, and the impact of re-allocating between investor groups.
The total deal size is 500 million. Flips are assumed to hit the market immediately. Management has provided a file containing the demand profile. The file contains Account, Account Group, Allocation dollars, estimated Flip% and estimated Holding Days.
Using the data and holdings provided, do the following:
Compute the % the deal is over- or undersubscribed.
If allocations are given pro rata, compute the allocation for each investor group in dollars.
In the pro rata slicing, determine the total aftermarket selling volume implied by flips and the weighted overall holding period for the book.
To limit flips, management is also considering allocating full demand based on lowest estimated flips until deal size is met. Compute the allocation for each investor group in dollars as well as the total aftermarket selling volume implied by flips and the weighted overall holding period for the book.
For both allocation strategies, calculate the percentage of the original expected to be flipped and state which investor group is driving the most flips.
Report all results rounded to 2 decimals, and dollar amounts in full rounded to 2 decimals.
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "Calculates oversubscription as 125.38% (acceptable range is 124.13% to 126.63%)",
"sources": "Demand Profile - Syndicate profile.csv",
"justification": "Oversubscription is 125.38%. To measure oversubscription, we compare total demand (i.e. requested allocation) against the deal size of $500,000,000. 1,126,894,389/500,000,000 -1 = 125.38%.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "Calculates pro rata hedge fund allocation as $127,599,993.76 (acceptable range is $126,323,993.82 to $128,875,993.70)",
"sources": "Demand Profile - Syndicate profile.csv",
"justification": "Pro rata hedge fund allocation is $127,599,993.76. The pro rata allocation for the Hedge Fund group is calculated by determining what portion of the $500 million deal should be distributed to them based on their proportional demand relative to all investors. First, the allocation factor is calculated by dividing the total deal size by the total requested demand from all investors (both Hedge Fund and Long-Only groups), which totals $1,126,894,389. Allocation Factor = Deal Size / Total Demand = $500,000,000 / $1,126,894,389 = 44.37% This factor means every investor will receive approximately 44.37% of the amount they initially requested. The sum of the individual scaled-down allocations for all hedge funds results in the total pro rata allocation for the group, which is $127,599,993.76.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "Calculates pro rata long only allocation as $372,400,006.24 (acceptable range is $368,676,006.18 to $376,124,006.30)",
"sources": "Demand Profile - Syndicate profile.csv",
"justification": "Pro rata long only allocation is $372,400,006.24. The pro rata allocation for the Long Only group is calculated by determining what portion of the $500 million deal should be distributed to them based on their proportional demand relative to all investors. First, the allocation factor is calculated by dividing the total deal size by the total requested demand from all investors (both Hedge Fund and Long-Only groups), which totals $1,126,894,389. Allocation Factor = Deal Size / Total Demand = $500,000,000 / $1,126,894,389 = 44.37% This factor means every investor will receive approximately 44.37% of the amount they initially requested. The sum of the individual scaled-down allocations for all Long Only accounts results in the total pro rata allocation for the group, which is $839,310,955.00 * 44.37% = $372,400,006.24.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "Calculates pro rata aftermarket selling volume as $100,852,402.84 (acceptable range is $99,843,878.81 to $101,860,926.87)",
"sources": "Demand Profile - Syndicate profile.csv",
"justification": "Pro rata aftermarket selling volume is $100,852,402.84. We calculate the flipped dollars by multiplying each account's pro rata allocation by its flip percentage, then adding across all accounts.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "Calculates pro rata weighted holding period as 80.80 days (acceptable range is 80.00 to 81.61)",
"sources": "Demand Profile - Syndicate profile.csv",
"justification": "Pro rata weighted holding period is 80.80 days. To get the weighted average holding days, we multiply each account's weight (allocation/ deal size) by its expected holding days, then sum them up.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "Calculates pro rata flip percentage as 20.17% (acceptable range is 19.97% to 20.37%)",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Pro rata flip percentage is 20.17%. This is the flipped dollars divided by the deal size, converted to a percent: Flipped Size: $100,852,402.84 Deal Size: $500,000,000 Pro rata flip percentage = $100,852,402.84 / $500,000,000 = 20.17%.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
4
]
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "Identifies hedge funds as the main driver of flips under pro rata",
"sources": "Demand Profile - Syndicate profile.csv",
"justification": "Hedge funds drive the majority of flips because their total flip volume is higher: Total flip volume from hedge funds: $55,133,681 total flip volume: $100,852,402.84, so hedge funds constitute more than half of the estimated flip volume.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
4
]
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "Calculates flip based hedge fund allocation as $0.00",
"sources": "Demand Profile - Syndicate profile.csv",
"justification": "Flip based allocation gives priority to investors who are least likely to flip, which are long-only accounts. Long-only accounts requested $839,310,955.00, so collectively, long-only accounts requested enough shares to completely fill the $500 million deal before the allocation process needed to consider any of the Hedge Funds. This gives hedge funds zero allocation because lowest flip ordering fills the $500,000,000 with long-only accounts before reaching hedge funds.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 9": {
"description": "Calculates flip based long only allocation as $500,000,000.00 (acceptable range $495,000,000.00 to $505,000,000.00)",
"sources": "Demand Profile - Syndicate profile.csv",
"justification": "Flip based allocation gives priority to investors who are least likely to flip, which are long-only accounts. Long-only accounts requested $839,310,955.00, so collectively, long-only accounts requested enough shares to completely fill the $500 million deal before the allocation process needed to consider any of the Hedge Funds. This gives long-only accounts the full $500,000,000 allocation.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 10": {
"description": "Calculates flip based aftermarket selling volume as $47,897,740.79 (acceptable range $47,418,763.38 to $48,376,718.20)",
"sources": "Demand Profile - Syndicate profile.csv",
"justification": "To calculate the aftermarket selling volume under a flip-based strategy, we first need to sort all potential investors by their flip percentage in ascending order, giving allocation priority to those least likely to sell. We then allocate the $500 million deal size sequentially down this sorted list, fulfilling each investor's requested demand until the deal is full. In this case, the demand from Long-Only accounts (who generally have lower flip percentages) is sufficient to fill the entire $500 million deal. The total aftermarket selling volume is then calculated by taking the sum of the flipped dollars from this newly allocated group. For each Long-Only account that received shares, we multiply their specific flip-based allocation by their individual flip percentage. Summing these amounts across all allocated accounts gives $47,897,740.79.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 11": {
"description": "Calculates flip based weighted holding period as 112.53 days (acceptable range 111.40 to 113.66)",
"sources": "Demand Profile - Syndicate profile.csv",
"justification": "To calculate the weighted holding period under a flip-based strategy, we first need to sort all potential investors by their flip percentage in ascending order, giving allocation priority to those least likely to sell. We then allocate the $500 million deal size sequentially down this sorted list, fulfilling each investor's requested demand until the deal is full. In this case, the demand from Long-Only accounts (who generally have lower flip percentages) is sufficient to fill the entire $500 million deal. The total weighted holding period is then calculated by taking the sum of each account's weight (allocation/ deal size) multiplied by its expected holding days. Summing these amounts across all allocated accounts gives 112.53 days.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 12": {
"description": "Calculates flip based flip percentage as 9.58% (acceptable range 9.48% to 9.68%)",
"sources": "",
"justification": "To calculate the aftermarket selling volume under a flip-based strategy, we first need to sort all potential investors by their flip percentage in ascending order, giving allocation priority to those least likely to sell. We then allocate the $500 million deal size sequentially down this sorted list, fulfilling each investor's requested demand until the deal is full. In this case, the demand from Long-Only accounts (who generally have lower flip percentages) is sufficient to fill the entire $500 million deal. The total aftermarket selling volume is then calculated by taking the sum of the flipped dollars from this newly allocated group. For each Long-Only account that received shares, we multiply their specific flip-based allocation by their individual flip percentage. Summing these amounts across all allocated accounts gives $47,897,740.79. The flip based flip percentage is then calculated as the aftermarket selling volume / deal size, i.e. $47,897,740.79 / $500,000,000 = 9.58%.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
10
]
},
"criterion 13": {
"description": "Identifies long only as the driver of flips under flip-based allocation strategy",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Driver of flips under flip based is Long Only. Because hedge funds are excluded in this allocation style, only long only allocations remain. Their flips account for all expected aftermarket selling.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
8,
9
]
}
}
|
documents/2308/Demand Profile - Syndicate profile.csv
|
2,315
|
Finance
|
The securitization capital markets team at SPO Capital has been actively working with rating agencies on an upcoming securitization issuance of a pool of performing residential transition loans ("RTL" or commonly known as "fix to flip" loans). RTL loans are short term loans issued to borrowers looking to acquire and rehab a residential property with the intent to then sell the property for a profit. The loan is structured as a bullet loan with no principal or interest payments until maturity. Interest pays in kind ("PIKs") monthly. Rating agencies have expressed certain reservations regarding this PIK structure and have requested the following diligence:
1. Calculate the aggregate Loan Balance at Maturity ("LBM") for the pool. Use the Total Loan, Closing Date, Maturity Date, and Interest Rate fields.
2. Calculate the weighted average (by Total Loan) LBM-to-Purchase Price ("PP") (i.e. a loan-to-value calculation using the LBM) for the pool. Use the Total Loan, Purchase Price, Closing Date, Maturity Date, and Interest Rate fields.
3. Calculate the weighted average (by Total Loan) LBM-to-After Repair Value ("ARV") for the pool. Use the Total Loan, ARV, Closing Date, Maturity Date, and Interest Rate fields.
4. Calculate the concentration (as a percentage of aggregate Total Loan) of loans with LBM-to-PP greater than 100%. Use the Total Loan, Purchase Price, Closing Date, Maturity Date, and Interest Rate fields.
5. Calculate the concentration (as a percentage of aggregate Total Loan) of loans with LBM-to-ARV greater than 100%. Use the Total Loan, ARV, Closing Date, Maturity Date, and Interest Rate fields.
Rating agency has also requested a "stress" scenario wherein each loan is assumed to be extended for an additional 6 months after maturity to account for unforeseen delays in rehab projects.
6. Calculate the aggregate Stressed Loan Balance at Maturity ("SLBM") for the pool. Use the Total Loan, Closing Date, Maturity Date, and Interest Rate fields.
7. Calculate the weighted average (by Total Loan) SLBM-to-Purchase Price ("PP") (i.e. a loan-to-value calculation using the SLBM) for the pool. Use the Total Loan, Purchase Price, Closing Date, Maturity Date, and Interest Rate fields.
8. Calculate the weighted average (by Total Loan) SLBM-to-After Repair Value ("ARV") for the pool. Use the Total Loan, ARV, Closing Date, Maturity Date, and Interest Rate fields.
9. Calculate the concentration (as a percentage of aggregate Total Loan) of loans with SLBM-to-PP greater than 100%. Use the Total Loan, Purchase Price, Closing Date, Maturity Date, and Interest Rate fields.
10. Calculate the concentration (as a percentage of aggregate Total Loan) of loans with SLBM-to-ARV greater than 100%. Use the Total Loan, ARV, Closing Date, Maturity Date, and Interest Rate fields.
Show all answers to two decimal places.
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "Calculates the Aggregate LBM for the pool as $168,728,114.72. (Acceptable range 167,040,833.57 to 170,415,395.86).",
"sources": "RTL Tape (Task 2315) - Input.CSV",
"justification": "Formula = \u2211( Loan Balance at Maturity) = 168,728,114.72. Loan Balance at Maturity = -FV(Interest Rate/12, datedif(Closing Date, Maturity Date, 'm'), 0, Total Loan) Generic Rationale: Calculates the loan balance at maturity for any individual loan based on the future value using the loan's interest rate divided by 12 for monthly periods, term of the loan calculated based on the Closing Date and Maturity Date (expressed in months), $0 in payment (pursuant to the PIK structure of the loan with all interest and principal due at maturity), and the present value (i.e. Total Loan balance). Total Loan, Interest Rate, Closing Date, and Maturity Date for each respective loan as per provided fields in RTL Tape (Task 2315) - Input.CSV source. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1VjD_iJpy1kLijHNiUi1PPR-BAYWYRebpsTW0uIoHNlc/edit?usp=sharing",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "Calculates the weighted average (by Total Loan) LBM-to-PP for the pool as 156.37%. (Acceptable range 154.81% to 157.93%).",
"sources": "RTL Tape (Task 2315) - Input.CSV",
"justification": "Formula = sumproduct(LBM-to-PP, Total Loan) / sum(Total Loan) = 235,872,990.99 / 150,843,581.00 = 156.37%. LBM-to-PP = Loan Balance at Maturity / Purchase Price Loan Balance at Maturity = -FV(Interest Rate/12, datedif(Closing Date, Maturity Date, 'm'), 0, Total Loan) Generic Rationale: Calculates the requested weighted average by taking the sum of the calculated LBM-to-PP multiplied by its respective weight (Total Loan per prompt) and dividing by the aggregate weights (sum of all Total Loan balances). LBM-to-PP calculated by taking the ratio of Loan Balance at Maturity to Purchase Price. Loan balance at maturity for any individual loan based on the future value using the loan's interest rate divided by 12 for monthly periods, term of the loan calculated based on the Closing Date and Maturity Date (expressed in months), $0 in payment (pursuant to the PIK structure of the loan with all interest and principal due at maturity), and the present value (i.e. Total Loan balance). Total Loan, Interest Rate, Closing Date, Maturity Date, and Purchase Price for each respective loan as per provided fields in RTL Tape (Task 2315) - Input.CSV source. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1VjD_iJpy1kLijHNiUi1PPR-BAYWYRebpsTW0uIoHNlc/edit?usp=sharing",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "Calculates the weighted average (by Total Loan) LBM-to-ARV for the pool as 74.66%. (Acceptable range 73.92% to 75.41%).",
"sources": "RTL Tape (Task 2315) - Input.CSV",
"justification": "Formula = sumproduct(LBM-to-ARV, Total Loan) / sum(Total Loan) = 112,623,490.54 / 150,843,581.00 = 74.66%. LBM-to-ARV = Loan Balance at Maturity / ARV Loan Balance at Maturity = -FV(Interest Rate/12, datedif(Closing Date, Maturity Date, 'm'), 0, Total Loan) Generic Rationale: Calculates the requested weighted average by taking the sum of the calculated LBM-to-ARV multiplied by its respective weight (Total Loan per prompt) and dividing by the aggregate weights (sum of all Total Loan balances). LBM-to-ARV calculated by taking the ratio of Loan Balance at Maturity to ARV. Loan balance at maturity for any individual loan based on the future value using the loan's interest rate divided by 12 for monthly periods, term of the loan calculated based on the Closing Date and Maturity Date (expressed in months), $0 in payment (pursuant to the PIK structure of the loan with all interest and principal due at maturity), and the present value (i.e. Total Loan balance). Total Loan, Interest Rate, Closing Date, Maturity Date, and ARV for each respective loan as per provided fields in RTL Tape (Task 2315) - Input.CSV source. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1VjD_iJpy1kLijHNiUi1PPR-BAYWYRebpsTW0uIoHNlc/edit?usp=sharing",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "Calculates the concentration of loans with LBM-to-PP greater than 100% as 93.60%. (Acceptable range 92.67% to 94.54%).",
"sources": "RTL Tape (Task 2315) - Input.CSV",
"justification": "Formula = sumproduct(--(LBM-to-PP>100%), Total Loan) / sum(Total Loan) = 141,196,581.00 / 150,843,581.00 = 93.60%. LBM-to-PP = Loan Balance at Maturity / PP Loan Balance at Maturity = -FV(Interest Rate/12, datedif(Closing Date, Maturity Date, 'm'), 0, Total Loan) Generic Rationale: Calculates the requested concentration by taking the sum of in Total Loan balances that meet the criteria (calculated LBM-to-PP greater than 100%). LBM-to-PP calculated by taking the ratio of Loan Balance at Maturity to Purchase Price. Loan balance at maturity for any individual loan based on the future value using the loan's interest rate divided by 12 for monthly periods, term of the loan calculated based on the Closing Date and Maturity Date (expressed in months), $0 in payment (pursuant to the PIK structure of the loan with all interest and principal due at maturity), and the present value (i.e. Total Loan balance). Total Loan, Interest Rate, Closing Date, Maturity Date, and Purchase Price for each respective loan as per provided fields in RTL Tape (Task 2315) - Input.CSV source. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1VjD_iJpy1kLijHNiUi1PPR-BAYWYRebpsTW0uIoHNlc/edit?usp=sharing",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "Calculates the concentration of loans with LBM-to-ARV greater than 100% as 0.45%. (Acceptable range 0.44% to 0.46%).",
"sources": "RTL Tape (Task 2315) - Input.CSV",
"justification": "Formula = sumproduct(--(LBM-to-ARV>100%), Total Loan) / sum(Total Loan) = 676,000.00 / 150,843,581.00 = 0.45%. LBM-to-ARV = Loan Balance at Maturity / ARV Loan Balance at Maturity = -FV(Interest Rate/12, datedif(Closing Date, Maturity Date, 'm'), 0, Total Loan) Generic Rationale: Calculates the requested concentration by taking the sum of all Total Loan balances that meet the criteria (calculated LBM-to-ARV greater than 100%). LBM-to-ARV calculated by taking the ratio of Loan Balance at Maturity to ARV. Loan balance at maturity for any individual loan based on the future value using the loan's interest rate divided by 12 for monthly periods, term of the loan calculated based on the Closing Date and Maturity Date (expressed in months), $0 in payment (pursuant to the PIK structure of the loan with all interest and principal due at maturity), and the present value (i.e. Total Loan balance). Total Loan, Interest Rate, Closing Date, Maturity Date, and ARV for each respective loan as per provided fields in RTL Tape (Task 2315) - Input.CSV source. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1VjD_iJpy1kLijHNiUi1PPR-BAYWYRebpsTW0uIoHNlc/edit?usp=sharing",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "Calculates the Aggregate SLBM for the pool as $179,150,144.92. (Acceptable range 177,358,643.47 to 180,941,646.37).",
"sources": "RTL Tape (Task 2315) - Input.CSV",
"justification": "Formula = \u2211( Stressed Loan Balance at Maturity) = 179,150,144.92. Stressed Loan Balance at Maturity = -FV(Interest Rate/12, datedif(Closing Date, Maturity Date, 'm') + 6, 0, Total Loan) Generic Rationale: Calculates the stressed loan balance at maturity for any individual loan based on the future value using the loan's interest rate divided by 12 for monthly periods, term of the loan calculated based on the Closing Date and Maturity Date (expressed in months) plus the additional 6 month stress, $0 in payment (pursuant to the PIK structure of the loan with all interest and principal due at maturity), and the present value (i.e. Total Loan balance). Total Loan, Interest Rate, Closing Date, and Maturity Date for each respective loan as per provided fields in RTL Tape (Task 2315) - Input.CSV source. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1VjD_iJpy1kLijHNiUi1PPR-BAYWYRebpsTW0uIoHNlc/edit?usp=sharing",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "Calculates the weighted average (by Total Loan) SLBM-to-PP for the pool as 166.04%. (Acceptable range 164.37% to 167.70%).",
"sources": "RTL Tape (Task 2315) - Input.CSV",
"justification": "Formula = sumproduct(SLBM-to-PP, Total Loan) / sum(Total Loan) = 250,453,588.08 / 150,843,581.00 = 166.04%. SLBM-to-PP = Stressed Loan Balance at Maturity / Purchase Price Stressed Loan Balance at Maturity = -FV(Interest Rate/12, datedif(Closing Date, Maturity Date, 'm') + 6, 0, Total Loan) Generic Rationale: Calculates the requested weighted average by taking the sum of the calculated SLBM-to-PP multiplied by its respective weight (Total Loan per prompt) and dividing by the aggregate weights (sum of all Total Loan balances). SLBM-to-PP calculated by taking the ratio of Stressed Loan Balance at Maturity to Purchase Price. Stressed loan balance at maturity for any individual loan based on the future value using the loan's interest rate divided by 12 for monthly periods, term of the loan calculated based on the Closing Date and Maturity Date (expressed in months) plus the additional 6 month stress, $0 in payment (pursuant to the PIK structure of the loan with all interest and principal due at maturity), and the present value (i.e. Total Loan balance). Total Loan, Interest Rate, Closing Date, Maturity Date, and Purchase Price for each respective loan as per provided fields in RTL Tape (Task 2315) - Input.CSV source. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1VjD_iJpy1kLijHNiUi1PPR-BAYWYRebpsTW0uIoHNlc/edit?usp=sharing",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "Calculates the weighted average (by Total Loan) SLBM-to-ARV for the pool as 79.28%. (Acceptable range 78.49% to 80.07%).",
"sources": "RTL Tape (Task 2315) - Input.CSV",
"justification": "Formula = sumproduct(SLBM-to-ARV, Total Loan) / sum(Total Loan) = 119,587,626.47 / 150,843,581.00 = 79.28%. SLBM-to-ARV = Stressed Loan Balance at Maturity / ARV Stressed Loan Balance at Maturity = -FV(Interest Rate/12, datedif(Closing Date, Maturity Date, 'm') + 6, 0, Total Loan) Generic Rationale: Calculates the requested weighted average by taking the sum of the calculated SLBM-to-ARV multiplied by its respective weight (Total Loan per prompt) and dividing by the aggregate weights (sum of all Total Loan balances). SLBM-to-ARV calculated by taking the ratio of Stressed Loan Balance at Maturity to ARV. Stressed loan balance at maturity for any individual loan based on the future value using the loan's interest rate divided by 12 for monthly periods, term of the loan calculated based on the Closing Date and Maturity Date (expressed in months) plus the additional 6 month stress, $0 in payment (pursuant to the PIK structure of the loan with all interest and principal due at maturity), and the present value (i.e. Total Loan balance). Total Loan, Interest Rate, Closing Date, Maturity Date, and ARV for each respective loan as per provided fields in RTL Tape (Task 2315) - Input.CSV source. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1VjD_iJpy1kLijHNiUi1PPR-BAYWYRebpsTW0uIoHNlc/edit?usp=sharing",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 9": {
"description": "Calculates the concentration of loans with SLBM-to-PP greater than 100% as 95.91%. (Acceptable range 94.95% to 96.87%).",
"sources": "RTL Tape (Task 2315) - Input.CSV",
"justification": "Formula = sumproduct(--(SLBM-to-PP>100%), Total Loan) / sum(Total Loan) = 144,668,581.00 / 150,843,581.00 = 95.91%. SLBM-to-PP = Stressed Loan Balance at Maturity / PP Stressed Loan Balance at Maturity = -FV(Interest Rate/12, datedif(Closing Date, Maturity Date, 'm') + 6, 0, Total Loan) Generic Rationale: Calculates the requested concentration by taking the sum of in Total Loan balances that meet the criteria (calculated SLBM-to-PP greater than 100%). SLBM-to-PP calculated by taking the ratio of Stressed Loan Balance at Maturity to Purchase Price. Stressed loan balance at maturity for any individual loan based on the future value using the loan's interest rate divided by 12 for monthly periods, term of the loan calculated based on the Closing Date and Maturity Date (expressed in months) plus the additional 6 month stress, $0 in payment (pursuant to the PIK structure of the loan with all interest and principal due at maturity), and the present value (i.e. Total Loan balance). Total Loan, Interest Rate, Closing Date, Maturity Date, and Purchase Price for each respective loan as per provided fields in RTL Tape (Task 2315) - Input.CSV source. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1VjD_iJpy1kLijHNiUi1PPR-BAYWYRebpsTW0uIoHNlc/edit?usp=sharing",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 10": {
"description": "Calculates the concentration of loans with SLBM-to-ARV greater than 100% as 0.45%. (Acceptable range 0.44% to 0.46%).",
"sources": "RTL Tape (Task 2315) - Input.CSV",
"justification": "Formula = sumproduct(--(SLBM-to-ARV>100%), Total Loan) / sum(Total Loan) = 676,000.00 / 150,843,581.00 = 0.45%. SLBM-to-ARV = Stressed Loan Balance at Maturity / ARV Stressed Loan Balance at Maturity = -FV(Interest Rate/12, datedif(Closing Date, Maturity Date, 'm') + 6, 0, Total Loan) Generic Rationale: Calculates the requested concentration by taking the sum of in Total Loan balances that meet the criteria (calculated SLBM-to-ARV greater than 100%). SLBM-to-ARV calculated by taking the ratio of Stressed Loan Balance at Maturity to ARV. Stressed loan balance at maturity for any individual loan based on the future value using the loan's interest rate divided by 12 for monthly periods, term of the loan calculated based on the Closing Date and Maturity Date (expressed in months) plus the additional 6 month stress, $0 in payment (pursuant to the PIK structure of the loan with all interest and principal due at maturity), and the present value (i.e. Total Loan balance). Total Loan, Interest Rate, Closing Date, Maturity Date, and ARV for each respective loan as per provided fields in RTL Tape (Task 2315) - Input.CSV source. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1VjD_iJpy1kLijHNiUi1PPR-BAYWYRebpsTW0uIoHNlc/edit?usp=sharing",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
}
}
|
documents/2315/RTL Tape (Task 2315) - Input.csv
|
2,317
|
Finance
|
In June 2020, Telefonica Deutschland sold its portfolio of communication sites to Telxius.
Assume Telefonica Deutschland, as a core tenant, is on average responsible for 75% of Telxius incremental EBITDA
What is the total amount of cash that Telefonica Deutschland will receive for selling the first tranche of its sites?
What is the total amount of cash that Telefonica Deutschland will receive for selling the second tranche of its sites?
How much cash will TEF DE receive in 2020 related to this tower deal?
How much cash will TEF DE receive in 2021 related to this tower deal?
How much cash will TEF DE receive in 2022 related to this tower deal?
How much cash will TEF DE receive in 2025 related to this tower deal?
How much more EBITDA is Telxius expected to generate upon completion of the sale of the sites p.a.?
By how much will lease payments in Telefonica Deutschland's cash flow statement increase or decrease upon completion of the sale of its towers and the deployment of the new sites p.a.?
What will the new 2020 FCF excl one-offs for Telefonica Deutschland be according to consensus (as of 1H20), assuming completion of the deal and its related cash leases but excluding the deployment of new sites?
What will the new 2020 FCF yield excl one-offs for Telefonica Deutschland be according to consensus (as of 1H20), assuming completion of the deal but excluding the deployment of new sites? The share count from 2019 remains unchanged in 2020 and the share price as of the time of the deal announcement is €3.3.
For clarity, the question regarding Telxius's incremental EBITDA refers only to the initial portfolio of sites being sold. The question regarding the increase in Telefonica Deutschland's lease payments refers to the total impact after both the sale of the initial portfolio and the full deployment of the new sites.
All figures to be stated with no decimals, any financial figure to be stated in €m and percentage figure rounded to one decimal.
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "States the total amount of cash that Telefonica Deutschland will receive for selling the first tranche of its sites is \u20ac945m (acceptable value is \u20ac945m).",
"sources": "TEF DE - 2020 annual report (condensed).pdf",
"justification": "For selling the first tranche of its sites, Telefonica Deutschland will receive is \u20ac945m. 'The purchase price receivable, taking into consideration the purchase price adjustment from the first step of the transaction, amounts to EUR\u00a0945\u00a0million' (source: TEF DE - 2020 annual report (condensed).pdf -> page 2)",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "States the total amount of cash that Telefonica Deutschland will receive for selling the second tranche of its sites is \u20ac632m (acceptable value is \u20ac632m).",
"sources": "TEF DE - 2021 annual report (condensed).pdf",
"justification": "For selling the second tranche of its sites, Telefonica Deutschland will receive \u20ac632m. 'The purchase price receivable including purchase price allocation from the second transaction step amounts to EUR 632 million.' (source: TEF DE - 2021 annual report (condensed).pdf -> page 1)",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "States Telefonica Deutschland will receive cash in the amount of \u20ac766m in 2020 related to the transaction in which it sells its sites (acceptable value is \u20ac766m).",
"sources": "TEF DE - 2020 annual report (condensed).pdf",
"justification": "Telefonica Deutschland will receive cash of \u20ac766m in 2020 related to the tower deal. - Cash from the first tranche: 'EUR\u00a0766\u00a0million was already paid in the reporting period.' (source: TEF DE - 2020 annual report (condensed).pdf -> page 2)",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "States Telefonica Deutschland will receive cash in the amount of \u20ac552m in 2021 related to the transaction in which it sells its sites (acceptable range is \u20ac546m to \u20ac558m).",
"sources": "TEF DE - 2021 annual report (condensed).pdf, TEF DE - 2020 annual report (condensed).pdf",
"justification": "Telefonica Deutschland will receive cash of \u20ac552m in 2021 related to the tower deal. - Cash from first tranche: 'is due for payment in 2021 with a share of EUR\u00a033\u00a0million' (source: TEF DE - 2020 annual report (condensed).pdf -> page 2) - Cash from second tranche: 'The amount of EUR\u00a0519\u00a0 million was already paid within the reporting period.' (source: TEF DE - 2021 annual report (condensed).pdf -> page 1).",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "States Telefonica Deutschland will receive cash in the amount of \u20ac16m in 2022 related to the transaction in which it sells its sites (acceptable value is \u20ac16m).",
"sources": "TEF DE - 2021 annual report (condensed).pdf",
"justification": "Telefonica Deutschland will receive cash of \u20ac16m in 2022 related to the tower deal. - Cash from second tranche: 'is due for payment in 2022 with a share of EUR\u00a016\u00a0million.' (source: TEF DE - 2021 annual report (condensed).pdf -> page 1).",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "States Telefonica Deutschland will receive cash in the amount of \u20ac243m in 2025 related to the transaction in which it sells its sites (acceptable range is \u20ac240m to \u20ac246m).",
"sources": "TEF DE - 2021 annual report (condensed).pdf, TEF DE - 2020 annual report (condensed).pdf",
"justification": "Telefonica Deutschland will receive cash of \u20ac243m in 2025 related to the tower deal. - Cash from first tranche: 'A further EUR\u00a0146\u00a0million will become due for payment in 2025.' (source: TEF DE - 2020 annual report (condensed).pdf -> page 2) - Cash from second tranche: 'A further EUR\u00a097\u00a0million will be due for payment in 2025.' (source: TEF DE - 2021 annual report (condensed).pdf -> page 1)",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "Calculates that Telxius can expect to generate EBITDA upon completion of the sale of the sites by Telefonica Deutschland in the amount of \u20ac65m p.a. (acceptable range is \u20ac64m to \u20ac66m).",
"sources": "Telefonica - TEF DE, Telxius deal - press release.pdf",
"justification": "The tower transaction of Telefonica Deutschland to Telxius is valued at \u20ac1.5bn at an EV/EBITDA multiple of c.23x. This implies an incremental EBITDA contribution from this tower deal for Telxius of \u20ac65m p.a. (source: Telefonica - TEF DE, Telxius deal - press release.pdf)",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "Calculates that lease payments in Telefonica Deutschland's cash flow statement upon completion of the sale of its towers and the deployment of the new sites will increase by \u20ac60m p.a. (acceptable range is \u20ac59m to \u20ac61m).",
"sources": "Telefonica - TEF DE, Telxius deal - press release.pdf",
"justification": "Telefonica Deutschland sells 10,113 towers at an EV/EBITDA multiple of 23x, which implies an EBITDA of \u20ac65m or an EBITDA per tower of \u20ac6,457 (= \u20ac65m / 10,113). This implies EBITDA for the 2,400 new towers yet to be deployed of \u20ac15m (= \u20ac6,457 * 2,400). In other words, the deal is worth \u20ac80m in terms of EBITDA for Telxius. Telefonica Deutschland is the core tenant and responsible for 75% of that EBITDA, as per prompt. Since this is a sale-and-leaseback transaction in which Telefonica Deutschland leases back its towers, its cash payments to Telxius amount to \u20ac60m p.a. (= \u20ac80m * 75%).",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
7
]
},
"criterion 9": {
"description": "Calculates Telefonica Deutschland's new 2020 FCF to be \u20ac425m based on 1H20 consensus figures excluding one-offs and upon completion of the transaction and its related cash leases but without taking into account the deployment of new sites (acceptable range is \u20ac420m to \u20ac430m).",
"sources": "TEF DE - 2Q20 consensus (new).pdf",
"justification": "Since the deal execution is specifically asked for in this criterion and with it the implied higher lease payment associated with it, the 2020 consensus for FCF After Lease (FCFaL) has to be taken into account. As it is FCF yield excluding one-offs, no proceeds from the transaction must be considered for the consensus figure. Thus, the correct figure to be used for 2020 FCFaL excl one-offs is \u20ac474m (source: 'TEF DE - 2Q20 consensus (new).pdf'). Lease payments related to the deal completion but excluding those for the deployment of new sites are \u20ac49m (= \u20ac65 (payments excluding new sites, i.e. the EBITDA value of the deal * 75%, which is Telefonica Deutschland's share of that as stated in the prompt)). This implies 2020 FCFaL excluding one-offs of \u20ac425m (= \u20ac474m - \u20ac49m).",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
7
]
},
"criterion 10": {
"description": "Calculates Telefonica Deutschland's new 2020 FCF yield excluding one-offs and upon completion of the transaction but without taking into account the deployment of new sites to be 4.3% (acceptable range is 4.25% to 4.35%).",
"sources": "TEF DE - 2019 year-end report.pdf",
"justification": "2020 FCF adjusting for lease payments related to the deal and excluding one-offs is \u20ac425m (= \u20ac474m - \u20ac49m) The share price is stated in the prompt as \u20ac3.30. The share count in 2019 was 2,974,554,993 (source: TEF DE - 2019 year-end report.pdf -> page 7) and is assumed to be unchanged in 2020. This implies a market cap of \u20ac9,816m (= \u20ac3.30 * 2,974,554,993) Lastly, dividing the updated 2020 FCFaL excluding one-offs of \u20ac425m by the market cap of \u20ac9,816m results in a FCF yield of 4.3%.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
9
]
}
}
|
documents/2317/TEF DE - 2019 year-end report.pdf
documents/2317/TEF DE - 2020 annual report (condensed).pdf
documents/2317/TEF DE - 2021 annual report (condensed).pdf
documents/2317/TEF DE - 2Q20 consensus (new).pdf
documents/2317/Telefonica - TEF DE, Telxius deal - press release.pdf
|
2,333
|
Finance
|
Objective: Assess whether a sponsor should pursue a Nasdaq Global Market IPO or a same-day underwritten Term Loan B (TLB).
Sources: Nasdaq Initial Listing Guide (March 2025) (Nasdaq); U.S. Leveraged Loan Primer (PitchBook LCD). These materials are publicly available and searchable online.
Jurisdiction and basis: U.S., USD, U.S. GAAP.
Rely only on the definitions and numbers provided in the two documents above. Treat the IPO as common stock only (no units, ADS, or warrants). Treat the TLB as a single, underwritten institutional term loan.
Starting input: Bridge Size (par): $516,912,553.13. Use this fixed par amount wherever “bridge size” is referenced.
Show percentages and basis-point (bp) figures to 1 bp (for example, 3.47%). For dollar amounts, round as follows: amounts at or above $10mm to the nearest $100k; amounts from $1mm to $10mm to the nearest $10k; and amounts below $1mm to the nearest $1k. Round only for final display.
When discounting future cash flows, derive the discount rate from LCD’s “spread-to-expected-life (STC)” convention using (i) the example margin specified in the LCD primer, (ii) OID mechanics per LCD applied to an issue price consistent with a 1-point discount, and (iii) an expected life equal to the midpoint of LCD’s stated “three- or four-year” assumption. Use simple annual compounding.
Using only the LCD primer, determine the STC discount rate for this case by (i) taking the example institutional loan margin in the primer, (ii) applying OID per LCD to an issue price consistent with a 1-point discount, and (iii) using the midpoint expected life from LCD’s stated range. Report the resulting annual STC (bp over the base) and the corresponding decimal discount rate you will use for PV in subsequent tasks. Do not add any base rate.
Analyze an underwritten TLB sized to the Bridge Size (given), with the LCD arranger fee at the midpoint of the stated range and with OID using the same LCD mechanics described above. Calculate and report (i) issuer day-one net cash, (ii) the day-one “all-in discount” in % of par and in dollars (arranger fee + OID), and (iii) the PV (using your STC rate) of the soft-call payment for a full refinancing at 18 months, using LCD’s standard two-year soft-call schedule.
From the Nasdaq guide, determine for the Global Market (i) the flat entry fee for a common stock listing and (ii) the annual fee range midpoint (ignore ADS/units footnotes and assume no proration for this case). Then calculate the IPO gross spread (%) that equalizes the issuer’s economics with the TLB in two ways: (A) day-one (no PV adjustments; assume annual fee paid day-one) and (B) PV-adjusted, subtracting the PV of the TLB soft-call from the prior task but not discounting Nasdaq cash fees (treat those as day-one). Report both gross-spread thresholds to 1 bp,
Using the LCD ABL borrowing-base guidance, determine the minimum eligible collateral needed to fully secure a facility equal to the Bridge Size (given) under the case: A/R-only at the LCD A/R advance rate.
Show your work
|
{
"criterion 1": {
"description": "Calculates the STC as 278.57 bps over the base (acceptable range is 275.79 bps to 281.36 bps).",
"sources": "U.S. Leveraged Loan Primer (PitchBook LCD)",
"justification": "The LCD primer describes spread-to-expected-life (STC) as the loan's margin plus the amortized premium/discount over the expected life. Use the LCD 'example margin' of L+250 bps and the OID mechanic that an issue price of 99 implies a 1-point (100 bps) discount. Use the midpoint expected life of 3.5 years from the 'three- or four-year' assumption. Compute the amortized OID add-on as 100 bps/3.5 = 28.5714 bps. Compute STC = 250.0000 bps + 28.5714 bps = 278.5714 bps. Show to 1 bp for display per the prompt. NO base rate used because the prompt explicitly forbids adding a base.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 2": {
"description": "Calculates the decimal annual discount rate for PV as 0.02786 (acceptable range is 0.02758 to 0.02814).",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Convert the STC in Criterion 1 to a decimal annual rate for discounting. Take 278.5714 bps = 2.785714% and divide by 100 to obtain 0.02785714. Present the rate as 0.02786 for display. Use simple annual compounding per the prompt and do not add any base rate because the prompt forbids it.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
1
]
},
"criterion 3": {
"description": "Calculates issuer day-one net cash for the TLB as $496.2mm (acceptable range is $491.3mm to $501.2mm).",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Bridge size = $516,912,553.13. (from prompt) Issuer day-one net cash = bridge size - (arranger fee + OID) Arranger fee + OID = $20,676,502.12 (from criterion 5) Issuer day-one net cash = $516,912,553.13 - $20,676,502.12 = $496,236,051.01 Display $496.2mm, applying the prompt's rounding (\u2265$10mm to nearest $100k).",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
5
]
},
"criterion 4": {
"description": "Calculates the TLB day-one all-in discount as 4.00% of par (acceptable value is 4.00%).",
"sources": "U.S. Leveraged Loan Primer (PitchBook LCD)",
"justification": "The LCD primer distinguishes upfront arranger fees from OID and specifies that issue at 99 implies a 1-point (100 bps) OID. Using the LCD arranger fee range of 1%\u20135% and the instruction to take the midpoint, the arranger fee is 3%. Add OID 1% to obtain an all-in day-one discount of 3% + 1% = 4.00% of par.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning",
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 5": {
"description": "Calculates the TLB day-one all-in discount dollars as $20.7mm (acceptable range is $20.5mm to $20.9mm).",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Compute discount dollars as All-in discount in percent of par (4%) [from criterion 4] multiplied by par ($516,912,553.13) [from prompt] to get $20,676,502 Display $20.7mm per the prompt's rounding (\u2265$10mm to nearest $100k).",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
4
]
},
"criterion 6": {
"description": "Calculates the PV of the soft-call payment at 18 months as $4.96mm (acceptable range is $4.91mm to $5.01mm).",
"sources": "U.S. Leveraged Loan Primer (PitchBook LCD)",
"justification": "Use the LCD soft-call convention of 2% in year 1 and 1% in year 2 for institutional TLBs. For a full refinancing at 18 months, apply the year-2 soft-call of 1% to par. Compute cash at t=1.5 years as 0.01*$516,912,553.13 = $5,169,125.53. Discount using the simple-compounding PV factor with r from Criterion 2: PV = 5,169,125.53/(1 + 0.02785714)^(1.5) = $4,960,414.20. Display $4.96mm (round to nearest $10k per the prompt's rules for $1-10mm).",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
2
]
},
"criterion 7": {
"description": "States the Nasdaq Global Market entry fee for common stock as $295,000 (acceptable value is $295,000).",
"sources": "Nasdaq Initial Listing Guide (March 2025)",
"justification": "From the Nasdaq Initial Listing Guide fee tables for the Global Market, read the flat entry fee for common stock listings shown as $295,000, inclusive of a $25,000 application fee. No proration is applied per the prompt's instruction.",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 8": {
"description": "Calculates the Nasdaq All-Inclusive Annual Fee midpoint for the Global Market as $125,000 (acceptable value is $125,000).",
"sources": "Nasdaq Initial Listing Guide (March 2025)",
"justification": "The Nasdaq All-Inclusive Annual Fee schedule for the Global Market shows a range from $56,000 to $193,000. Compute the midpoint as (56,000 + 193,000)/2 = 124,500. Apply the prompt's display rule for <$1mm values (nearest $1k) to show $125,000",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
},
"criterion 9": {
"description": "Calculates the day-one IPO gross-spread threshold (using the midpoint annual fee) as 3.92% (acceptable range is 3.88% to 3.96%).",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Equalize day-one issuer cash between IPO and TLB. Assume IPO primary gross proceeds = Par (Bridge Size) and 100% primary (no greenshoe), per prompt. Define Par = $516,912,553.13, Net_TLB = $496,236,051.01 (Criterion 3), Entry fee = $295,000 (criterion 7), Annual fee midpoint for calculation = $124,500 (criterion 8), Fees = $419,500. Use the no-PV equation GS = 1 - (Net_TLB + Fees)/Par. Substitute values: GS = 1 - (496,236,051.01 + 419,500)/516,912,553.13 = 1 - 496,655,551.01/516,912,553.13 = 1 - 0.960811 = 0.039189 = 3.9189%. Display 3.92% to 1 bp.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
3,
7,
8
]
},
"criterion 10": {
"description": "Calculates the PV-adjusted IPO gross-spread threshold (using the midpoint annual fee) as 4.88% (acceptable range is 4.83% to 4.93%).",
"sources": "",
"justification": "Equalize PV-adjusted issuer economics by subtracting the PV of the soft-call from the TLB side while treating Nasdaq cash fees as day-one. Assume IPO primary gross proceeds = Par (Bridge Size) and 100% primary (no greenshoe), per prompt. Use GS = 1 - (Net_TLB - PV_softcall + Fees)/Par. Insert Net_TLB = $496,236,051.01 (Criterion 3), PV_softcall = $4,960,414.20 (Criterion 6), Fees (midpoint calc) = $419,500, Par = $516,912,553.13. Compute numerator = 496,236,051.01 - 4,960,414.20 + 419,500 = 491,695,136.81. Compute ratio = 491,695,136.81/516,912,553.13 = 0.9511679, then GS = 1 - 0.9511679 = 0.048785 = 4.8785%. Display 4.88%, consistent with 1 bp precision.",
"weight": "Primary objective(s)",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": [
3,
6,
7,
8
]
},
"criterion 11": {
"description": "Calculates the required eligible A/R collateral for an A/R-only borrowing base at 80% as $646.1mm (acceptable range is $639.7mm to $652.6mm).",
"sources": "U.S. Leveraged Loan Primer (PitchBook LCD)",
"justification": "Use the LCD ABL advance-rate guidance that receivables are typically advanced at approximately 80%. Let the facility equal the bridge-size par F = $516,912,553.13. Compute the minimum eligible A/R needed to fully cover the facility under an A/R-only borrowing base as Required A/R = F/0.80 = 516,912,553.13/0.80 = 646,140,691.41. Display $646.1mm using the prompt's rounding rule for values \u2265$10mm (nearest $100k).",
"weight": "Not primary objective",
"human_rating": false,
"criterion_type": [
"Extraction (recall)",
"Reasoning"
],
"dependent_criteria": []
}
}
|
documents/2333/Chemicals & Specialty Materials.pdf
documents/2333/Nasdaq Initial Listing Guide”.pdf
documents/2333/Order Making Fiscal Year 2026 Annual Adjustments to Registration Fee Rates.pdf
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.