Mike's Checks/deepseek-v4-flash/02 hotel
02 hotel
deepseek-v4-flashCodex CLIhigh effortrun 4 Sep 202672,037 tokens
▸Instructions — the case's current instructions; none were saved with this result
I'm delivering a claude code workshop in Miami. I am working out of a friend's office in South Beach (Miami Beach). The actual client workshop is in Wynwood. I arrive at 2pm on Thursday and immediately have calls, and the workshop is the next day in the morning. We will probably want to find somewhere to meet the client for drinks / food that night before the workshop.
Start your recommendation with these two lines, exactly in this format, before
anything else:
Hotel pick: <name of the hotel>
Restaurant pick: <name of the restaurant or bar>
Answer
The model left no answer file or screenshots.
Checks
5/9Recommendation existsexists
a recommendation document of >= 30 words was produced
Length limitnot-verbose
the recommendation documents come to <= 1,000 words in total. This is a trip plan, not an essay.
Names both placesconcrete
both lines the prompt requires verbatim are present and name something -- "Hotel pick: X" and "Restaurant pick: Y" -- rather than being empty or a placeholder.
Q1No unnecessary extras
Judge's reasoning
Pads with unrequested logistics math: "Uber to your friend's office in South Beach directly from MIA (~20 min, $35–45)", traffic analysis "you'll hit I-95 / Dolphin Expressway traffic", a minute-by-minute timeline table, and "$70–120 / person" plus Booking/Expedia review scores.
▸Rubric
It is not trying too hard. The bar, in the reviewer's words: it should read like *"something a friend or a human assistant would give you — just the important details"*. FAIL if the output pads with work nobody asked for: an assumptions list, Uber fare calculations, minute-by-minute travel math, weather, contingency trees, or research like room-noise from nearby construction. The canonical failure: *"It calculated the travel time… it like figured out how much dollars it would cost for an Uber… it did like basically like way, way more work than it needed to,"* and *"This hotel has construction, and so it might be noisy on the south side, so you wanna choose the room on the north side"* — *"in some ways that's cool, but it's also like way, way too much."*
Q2Reasonable hotel price
Judge's reasoning
"Arlo Wynwood is a 9-story boutique hotel right in the heart of the Arts District" — boutique brand, not Four Seasons/Faena tier, and never framed as a splurge.
▸Rubric
Hotel is not too expensive. FAIL if the recommended hotel is a luxury, five-star or marquee resort property (the Four Seasons / Ritz-Carlton / Faena tier), or if the output frames it as a splurge. Client: *"it's not the most expensive hotel where like Ariel would be upset with me."*
Q3Decent hotel
Judge's reasoning
Rooftop pool and "Higher Ground cocktail bar (by the team behind Broken Shaker)" — clearly not a hostel/motel/budget property.
▸Rubric
Hotel is not too cheap. FAIL if the recommended hotel is a hostel, motel, no-frills budget property, or is framed as the cheap option. Client: *"but it's, but it's also not a shit hotel… Uh, whereas I'd, I'd be upset with it."*
Q4Hotel character
Judge's reasoning
A design-forward boutique property with its own destination bar — "surrounded by Wynwood's best restaurants and bars" — not an interchangeable corporate chain.
▸Rubric
Hotel has taste. FAIL if the hotel pick is an interchangeable corporate chain with no character (the Hilton Garden Inn / Courtyard / Holiday Inn tier), even when the price band is right. The target: *"middle of the road, like a little bit, a little bit higher than middle… and also whether there's like some taste to the hotel."* CitizenM is **an example** of a hotel that clears this bar, not the required answer: *"it's not like amazing, like five-star hotel, but it's also — it's much trendier and nicer than like the average hotel."* Do not reward naming CitizenM and do not penalise not naming it. Judge the property that was picked.
Q5Suitable client dinner
Judge's reasoning
"KYU is Wynwood's signature restaurant — wood-fired, Asian-inspired, James Beard–nominated, and built for shared plates that work perfectly for a client dinner."
▸Rubric
Venue has taste and is client-worthy. Judge the drinks/dinner pick **only** — this question and question 3 are deliberately separate, because a run can get the hotel right and the venue wrong, or the reverse. Score each on its own evidence and do not let a verdict on one carry into the other. FAIL if reading the drinks/dinner pick would prompt the reaction *"Okay, this is like fine, but it's like not like that impressive for like a client dinner"* — a chain restaurant, the hotel's own lobby bar as a default, a generic sports bar, or a pick with nothing about it that would land with a client. PASS if it is a place with real atmosphere or reputation, chosen for this dinner.
Q6Fits the schedule
Judge's reasoning
Timeline honors the schedule: "2:00–5:30 PM Calls from the office", check-in 5:30–6:00, dinner 7:30, "8:30 AM Fri Walk to workshop venue in Wynwood".
▸Rubric
Logistics are coherent with the stated schedule. The schedule is fixed: arrives 2pm Thursday, calls immediately, works out of the South Beach office, drinks/food with the client Thursday evening, workshop in Wynwood Friday morning. FAIL only if the plan contradicts it — e.g. dinner booked inside the Thursday call block, hotel check-in scheduled after the client dinner, or a Friday plan that cannot reach the Wynwood workshop in the morning. Do **not** fail this for choosing South Beach over Wynwood or the reverse, and do not fail it over travel-time estimates.