Instructions — what the model was asked okay now we need the "what is a personal benchmark" graf
Read all okay now we need the "what is a personal benchmark" graf
5 of 8 checks failed ↓ ⇤ Checks beside the answer
ANSWER.md the model's output · 1.53 KB download Standard AI benchmarks are like the SATs: they ask whether AI can replace you on generic tests, and at this point every frontier model scores near the top—which tells you almost nothing about which one is actually good at your job. What you want instead is a reference check that asks whether a model can be put to work for you and help you do your job better. Coding took off with AI first because code has verifiable rewards, while knowledge work depends on human taste. A personal benchmark makes your taste testable by turning your real work and corrections into repeatable test cases and simple yes/no checks based on your judgment. Today in Every Checks, we do this for our own editorial work—like testing models on a published article opening with yes/no checks for whether the headline makes the strongest possible claim and the opening uses concrete wording, or turning our editor-in-chief Kate’s copy edits in Google Docs into checks (KateBench ). Next, whenever you correct an AI in your workflow—“that’s not quite right, do this instead”—one click will save that correction as a case and a check automatically. Because no model company can credibly tell you when a competitor’s model is better, your personal benchmark compares models across every provider against your standards, shows you which one works best or most cheaply for your specific tasks, helps you switch when a better model comes along, and gives your skills (KatePass ) a clear target to improve against so you can share them with your team (EveryAgent ).
Notes 1 not scored
Full-artifact replacement for run 1884; original model run 53269da0-1efb-43bd-ae9c-f565a5cdef19, no generation rerun or rescoring. Original start 2026-10-03T18:01:40.178Z, duration 458.57s. Answer and trace downloaded back and SHA-256 verified against frozen originals; original verdicts preserved. Actual runner Gemini CLI, temporary Codex compatibility label approved by Dan. Model gemini-4-argon-eap, HIGH; setup verified private. Old record reversibly hidden after verification.
3 Oct 2026
5 failed fail
D01. First sentence answers the questionthis case
Judge's reasoning
The only version opens with a generic benchmark analogy, "Standard AI benchmarks are like the SATs: they ask whether AI can replace you on generic tests…", and never says what a personal benchmark does for the reader.
Read all Show less Rubric D01. Does the first sentence answer what a personal benchmark is in plain, accurate terms?
Evaluate every paragraph offered as usable copy: the Personal benchmarks paragraph in the working notion-strategy-draft.md if edited, and all proposed drafts and alternatives in ANSWER.md, including unranked or less-preferred options. Judge each version independently against this check. PASS only if every offered version passes; one failing version means FAIL, even if another passes. Exclude clearly rejected examples and commentary. Notes cannot supply missing explanations or repair the copy. If no candidate paragraph is offered, FAIL.
Dan's review: “Does it answer the question accurately in a way I understand?”
PASS if: The first sentence tells a new reader what a personal benchmark does for their own work or their choice of AI model. Simple language such as measuring how well an AI works for you can pass, even if a sharper sentence would say it helps identify the best model for your work.
FAIL if: The first sentence only sets up a generic benchmark, offers an analogy that needs decoding, or restates 'personal' and 'benchmark' without saying what the person gets from it.
Return PASS or FAIL and one sentence of evidence from the candidate paragraph. For a failure, identify the version and quote the relevant wording.
fail
D02. Explain the terms the reader needsthis case
Judge's reasoning
The paragraph uses unexplained names and terms, including "Every Checks," "(**KateBench**)," "skills (**KatePass**)," "(**EveryAgent**)" and "a case and a check," which a new reader has to decode.
Read all Show less Rubric D02. Can a new reader understand the terms and references needed to follow the paragraph when they appear?
Evaluate every paragraph offered as usable copy: the Personal benchmarks paragraph in the working notion-strategy-draft.md if edited, and all proposed drafts and alternatives in ANSWER.md, including unranked or less-preferred options. Judge each version independently against this check. PASS only if every offered version passes; one failing version means FAIL, even if another passes. Exclude clearly rejected examples and commentary. Notes cannot supply missing explanations or repair the copy. If no candidate paragraph is offered, FAIL.
Dan's review: “we haven't defined what checks are. So I'm lost.”
PASS if: An unfamiliar term essential to the explanation is made understandable at first use, either by ordinary wording or an immediate explanation or example. Normal reader knowledge and context already established in the surrounding document count.
FAIL if: The paragraph relies on an unexplained term or reference whose meaning the reader must reconstruct from the model's notes or unstated context.
This extends the check beyond ‘checks’ to concepts such as ‘cases.’ It does not require a glossary, explaining familiar words, or repeating material already introduced. Do not fail an ordinary use of the verb ‘check’ when its object is clear. Assess an analogy's explanatory value separately under D04.
Return PASS or FAIL and one sentence of evidence from the candidate paragraph. For a failure, identify the version and quote the relevant wording.
fail
D03. Each sentence follows the previous onethis case
Judge's reasoning
It jumps from the reference-check idea straight to "Coding took off with AI first because code has verifiable rewards, while knowledge work depends on human taste" without connecting the two.
Read all Show less Rubric D03. Does the paragraph develop its explanation in a coherent sequence, without missing connections between ideas?
Evaluate every paragraph offered as usable copy: the Personal benchmarks paragraph in the working notion-strategy-draft.md if edited, and all proposed drafts and alternatives in ANSWER.md, including unranked or less-preferred options. Judge each version independently against this check. PASS only if every offered version passes; one failing version means FAIL, even if another passes. Exclude clearly rejected examples and commentary. Notes cannot supply missing explanations or repair the copy. If no candidate paragraph is offered, FAIL.
Dan's review: “Each sentence of this paragraph needs to connect from one to the next, and that breaks the connection.”
PASS if: Each sentence builds on an established idea or makes its change of direction understandable. The explanation supplies the connections a reader needs before relying on them.
FAIL if: A sentence abruptly changes subjects, leaves a necessary explanation unfinished, or skips a step in the reasoning so the reader must invent the missing connection.
Judge continuity throughout the paragraph, allowing ordinary reader knowledge and established document context. No particular topic order or transition words are required; an implicit connection is enough when clear. A change of topic, contrast, or analogy can pass when its relationship to the preceding idea is understandable.
Return PASS or FAIL and one sentence of evidence from the candidate paragraph. For a failure, identify the version and quote the relevant wording.
fail
D04. Analogy clicks without algebrathis case
Judge's reasoning
It leads with the compressed analogies "like the SATs" and "What you want instead is a reference check" and never maps what corresponds to what for personal benchmarks.
Read all Show less Rubric D04. If the paragraph uses an analogy, does it clarify the concept immediately?
Evaluate every paragraph offered as usable copy: the Personal benchmarks paragraph in the working notion-strategy-draft.md if edited, and all proposed drafts and alternatives in ANSWER.md, including unranked or less-preferred options. Judge each version independently against this check. PASS only if every offered version passes; one failing version means FAIL, even if another passes. Exclude clearly rejected examples and commentary. Notes cannot supply missing explanations or repair the copy. If no candidate paragraph is offered, FAIL.
Dan's review: “I have to do a lot of algebra to understand it.”
PASS if: There is no analogy, or the comparison promptly maps ordinary benchmarks and personal benchmarks to familiar things and helps the reader understand the distinction. It does not require reconstructing the relationship for oneself.
FAIL if: It leads with a compressed line such as 'a reference check, not an SAT score' before the reader knows what corresponds to what, or delays the mapping so the analogy is forgotten before it is explained.
Return PASS or FAIL and one sentence of evidence from the candidate paragraph. For a failure, identify the version and quote the relevant wording.
fail
D07. Tests performance on your workthis case
Judge's reasoning
It endorses the reference-check framing ("What you want instead is a reference check that asks whether a model can be put to work for you"), which is the secondhand framing the rubric rejects.
Read all Show less Rubric D07. Does the paragraph frame a personal benchmark as a direct trial of a model on your work?
Evaluate every paragraph offered as usable copy: the Personal benchmarks paragraph in the working notion-strategy-draft.md if edited, and all proposed drafts and alternatives in ANSWER.md, including unranked or less-preferred options. Judge each version independently against this check. PASS only if every offered version passes; one failing version means FAIL, even if another passes. Exclude clearly rejected examples and commentary. Notes cannot supply missing explanations or repair the copy. If no candidate paragraph is offered, FAIL.
Dan's review: “personal benchmarks are more like a work trial than a reference check.”
PASS if: It explains trying models on tasks representative of your work and judging their performance against your standards. A work trial, audition, test assignment, or accurate literal explanation can convey this; the phrase 'work trial' is not required.
FAIL if: It endorses a reference check or other secondhand report of performance as the explanation of personal benchmarks, even if it also mentions tasks and checks, or never makes clear that the model's own performance on your work is tested. Explicitly rejecting the reference-check analogy is not a failure.
Return PASS or FAIL and one sentence of evidence from the candidate paragraph. For a failure, identify the version and quote the relevant wording.
3 passed pass
ai-wording every task
deliverable text contains none of the shared AI-tell phrases in bench/ai-tells.txt. Task checks may add narrower contractual bans, but must not repeat this shared floor.
inspected rick-every-checks-demo-transcript.md, strategy-reading-notes.md, earlier-benchmark-phrasing-chat.json, notion-editorial-review-before-paragraph.md, ANSWER.md, notion-strategy-draft.md
Read all Show less pass
D05. Make personal standards concretethis case
Judge's reasoning
It gives concrete standards ("whether the headline makes the strongest possible claim and the opening uses concrete wording") and says the benchmark "compares models across every provider against your standards."
Read all Show less Rubric D05. Does the paragraph make a person's own standard concrete?
Evaluate every paragraph offered as usable copy: the Personal benchmarks paragraph in the working notion-strategy-draft.md if edited, and all proposed drafts and alternatives in ANSWER.md, including unranked or less-preferred options. Judge each version independently against this check. PASS only if every offered version passes; one failing version means FAIL, even if another passes. Exclude clearly rejected examples and commentary. Notes cannot supply missing explanations or repair the copy. If no candidate paragraph is offered, FAIL.
Dan's review: “The thing that's good about this is it is concrete. It gives concrete examples, which is really, really important for this.”
PASS if: It gives at least one understandable example of a standard the person could set for their work, such as whether a headline is interesting or follows AP style, and makes clear that models can be compared against those standards. Other good standards count; Dan's examples are illustrative, not required wording.
FAIL if: It merely lists tasks, corrections, taste, or judgment without showing what one actual standard would ask, or gives a detail that does not help the reader see how a person's standard applies across models.
Return PASS or FAIL and one sentence of evidence from the candidate paragraph. For a failure, identify the version and quote the relevant wording.
pass
D06. Claims fit the supplied contextthis case
Judge's reasoning
The headline checks and Kate's Google Docs corrections match the demo transcript, and the one-click capture is framed as a future intention ("Next… one click will save"), not a current capability.
Read all Show less Rubric D06. Do the paragraph's claims about how the product works fit the supplied context?
Evaluate every paragraph offered as usable copy: the Personal benchmarks paragraph in the working notion-strategy-draft.md if edited, and all proposed drafts and alternatives in ANSWER.md, including unranked or less-preferred options. Judge each version independently against this check. PASS only if every offered version passes; one failing version means FAIL, even if another passes. Exclude clearly rejected examples and commentary. Notes cannot supply missing explanations or repair the copy. If no candidate paragraph is offered, FAIL.
Use the supplied task source material to assess the paragraph's claims.
PASS if: Product claims and promises are supported by the source material, with proposed capabilities presented as intentions where that distinction matters. Clearly illustrative examples are allowed.
FAIL if: The explanation depends on an invented or contradicted capability, or presents an aspiration as an established current capability.
This assesses support, not whether the prose sounds exciting or cautious. Do not demand qualifications that do not change the claim's meaning. An aspiration about one-click capture, for example, should not become a factual claim that the product already captures every correction automatically.
Return PASS or FAIL and one sentence of evidence identifying the relevant claim and its support or conflict in the supplied material. For a failure, identify the version and quote the relevant wording.
judged by Claude