Agents produce professional work from large collections of business files, with checks for correctness, analysis, and presentation.
34 model results
One row per model and compatible score measure. Mean = equal-weight arithmetic average of imported reports. Distinct configurations reported for the same model in a source table remain separate. Reports can overlap; the range is not a confidence interval. Unbundle to inspect each observation.
61.2% rubric pass rate. The headline Elo separately reflects judged work quality and presentation. #2 of 28 in this displayed comparison; 12.17 Elo below the leader.
61.3% rubric pass rate. The headline Elo separately reflects judged work quality and presentation. #3 of 28 in this displayed comparison; 82.5 Elo below the leader.
50.4% rubric pass rate. The headline Elo separately reflects judged work quality and presentation. #4 of 28 in this displayed comparison; 134.03 Elo below the leader.
61.5% rubric pass rate. The headline Elo separately reflects judged work quality and presentation. #5 of 28 in this displayed comparison; 142.39 Elo below the leader.
61.2% rubric pass rate. The headline Elo separately reflects judged work quality and presentation. #6 of 28 in this displayed comparison; 153.17 Elo below the leader.
55.4% rubric pass rate. The headline Elo separately reflects judged work quality and presentation. #7 of 28 in this displayed comparison; 173.98 Elo below the leader.
58.0% rubric pass rate. The headline Elo separately reflects judged work quality and presentation. #8 of 28 in this displayed comparison; 204.12 Elo below the leader.
52.3% rubric pass rate. The headline Elo separately reflects judged work quality and presentation. #9 of 28 in this displayed comparison; 236.45 Elo below the leader.
47.5% rubric pass rate. The headline Elo separately reflects judged work quality and presentation. #10 of 28 in this displayed comparison; 241.4 Elo below the leader.
52.0% rubric pass rate. The headline Elo separately reflects judged work quality and presentation. #11 of 28 in this displayed comparison; 243.68 Elo below the leader.
55.7% rubric pass rate. The headline Elo separately reflects judged work quality and presentation. #12 of 28 in this displayed comparison; 256.72 Elo below the leader.
54.5% rubric pass rate. The headline Elo separately reflects judged work quality and presentation. #13 of 28 in this displayed comparison; 290.83 Elo below the leader.
54.7% rubric pass rate. The headline Elo separately reflects judged work quality and presentation. #14 of 28 in this displayed comparison; 301.15 Elo below the leader.
51.3% rubric pass rate. The headline Elo separately reflects judged work quality and presentation. #15 of 28 in this displayed comparison; 307.83 Elo below the leader.
64.6% rubric pass rate. The headline Elo separately reflects judged work quality and presentation. #16 of 28 in this displayed comparison; 328.54 Elo below the leader.
47.8% rubric pass rate. The headline Elo separately reflects judged work quality and presentation. #17 of 28 in this displayed comparison; 338.45 Elo below the leader.
47.8% rubric pass rate. The headline Elo separately reflects judged work quality and presentation. #18 of 28 in this displayed comparison; 388.96 Elo below the leader.
42.4% rubric pass rate. The headline Elo separately reflects judged work quality and presentation. #19 of 28 in this displayed comparison; 410.14 Elo below the leader.
47.8% rubric pass rate. The headline Elo separately reflects judged work quality and presentation. #20 of 28 in this displayed comparison; 419.15 Elo below the leader.
45.2% rubric pass rate. The headline Elo separately reflects judged work quality and presentation. #21 of 28 in this displayed comparison; 421.02 Elo below the leader.
41.2% rubric pass rate. The headline Elo separately reflects judged work quality and presentation. #22 of 28 in this displayed comparison; 475.63 Elo below the leader.
41.6% rubric pass rate. The headline Elo separately reflects judged work quality and presentation. #23 of 28 in this displayed comparison; 518.46 Elo below the leader.
45.7% rubric pass rate. The headline Elo separately reflects judged work quality and presentation. #24 of 28 in this displayed comparison; 533.44 Elo below the leader.
42.1% rubric pass rate. The headline Elo separately reflects judged work quality and presentation. #25 of 28 in this displayed comparison; 609.57 Elo below the leader.
26.9% rubric pass rate. The headline Elo separately reflects judged work quality and presentation. #26 of 28 in this displayed comparison; 813.06 Elo below the leader.
31.4% rubric pass rate. The headline Elo separately reflects judged work quality and presentation. #27 of 28 in this displayed comparison; 835.62 Elo below the leader.
19.3% rubric pass rate. The headline Elo separately reflects judged work quality and presentation. #28 of 28 in this displayed comparison; 978.76 Elo below the leader.
Publisher-selected recent-model cohort from the public evaluation page. Model labels preserve effort and fallback configurations. Values are a dated snapshot, not a live feed. Consult the publisher’s methodology for the harness, task split and judging; do not merge this cohort with vendor-run results.
AA-Briefcase v1.1 · AA-Briefcase v1.1 (Elo-score) · Kimi K3.1 Pro · complete release comparison · 2026-10-27
Published model comparison, 2026. Kimi K3.1 Pro · complete release comparison. Exact values from the publisher’s embedded full comparison table. Maximum effort, fallback settings and dated model versions remain in model labels. Blank cells stay missing. Source footnotes specify mixed harnesses and externally quoted comparisons; this is a launch-reported cohort rather than a new independent evaluation. Benchmarks · full embedded comparison table · row 24; source precision and any reported uncertainty retained. These are source-reported observations, not evaluations run by RLTasks.
TRACE THE SCORE · Per-model notes use published breakdowns where available.
Reported in recent model launches
These model reports include this benchmark. Their harnesses, task subsets, scoring policies, and resource budgets can differ; follow each report’s evaluation notes before joining the numbers.
Agents produce professional work from large collections of business files, with checks for correctness, analysis, and presentation.
How to read the result
Inspect the rubric result alongside presentation preferences. A convincing slide deck can still use the wrong evidence.
Limits and comparison traps
Tasks within a project are currently run independently; do not read the multi-week framing as evidence of persistent autonomous work.
Published evaluation
Exact values from the publisher’s embedded full comparison table. Maximum effort, fallback settings and dated model versions remain in model labels. Blank cells stay missing. Source footnotes specify mixed harnesses and externally quoted comparisons; this is a launch-reported cohort rather than a new independent evaluation.
Where this fits in an evaluation suite
A transcript that says “done” is weaker evidence than the verified final state. Track policy violations, recoveries, and invalid attempts alongside success.
Start with a capability hypothesis, then choose a second test with a different failure mode. Keep the checkpoint, reasoning effort, agent tools, sampling policy, and scoring procedure fixed when measuring a training intervention. Record failures and missing outputs in the denominator.
A reproducible comparison
Exact values from the publisher’s embedded full comparison table. Maximum effort, fallback settings and dated model versions remain in model labels. Blank cells stay missing. Source footnotes specify mixed harnesses and externally quoted comparisons; this is a launch-reported cohort rather than a new independent evaluation.
Publish the exact run configuration, item coverage, score units, and available uncertainty. If a source supplies only an aggregate or a single run, preserve that limit. A new model name or a rounded score alone does not establish a capability improvement.